beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 98,609,084 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 23, 2015 to May 18, 2016 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: Main-ro railroad construction project, Gangnam-si 7 (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice No. 2013-340, Oct. 31, 2013; No. 2013-636, Oct. 31, 2013; No. 2013-338, Jun. 10, 2014; No. 2014-48, Jul. 18, 2014; and No. 2015-63, Feb. 11, 2015;
B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on May 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”) - The date of commencement of expropriation: June 22, 2015 - Each land and obstacles listed in the list of objects of expropriation (land) and the list of objects of expropriation (land) listed in attached Tables 1 and 2 are as follows.
- Compensation for losses: A house described in the first paragraph of the [Attachment 2] List of Objects to be Expropriation (Land)] among them shall be determined as KRW 639,263,140 on the basis of the ex post facto assessment of the appraised amount conducted by two appraisers (hereinafter “instant house”).
21,657,500 won)
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on October 22, 2015 - Compensation for losses: After two appraisers conducted a re-appraisal, the amount of appraisal shall be assessed in an arithmetic manner, and the compensation for the attached Table 2 shall be increased from KRW 223,441,10 to KRW 314,884,050 (the compensation for the housing in this case shall be KRW 302,964,050 in the case of the compensation for the housing in this case), the compensation for the attached Table 1 (land) shall be increased from KRW 223,441,10 to KRW 314,884,050 (the compensation for the housing in this case shall be KRW 302,964,050 in the case of the compensation for the housing in this case), the fact
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a traditional traditional Korean-style house that had been served before 100 years ago, and is a cultural heritage with a certified architect’s meaning, and thus, it is worth preserving it.
However, the amount of compensation for the housing of this case as stipulated in the expropriation ruling or objection ruling (hereinafter “instant amount of compensation”) is unreasonable as it does not reflect at all the value evaluation as a cultural property as above.