beta
Text
1. Of the real estate listed in attached Tables 1, 2, 4, and 6 of the Schedule 1, the Defendant each indicated in Attached Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer that implements a road project for the development of B (hereinafter “instant project”) and the Defendant is the owner of a vinyl house (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) indicated in the order of each land located within the said project district (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport determined a road zone pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Road Act with respect to the instant project implemented by the Plaintiff, and publicly notified to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport C on July 30, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiff attempted to hold consultations on the transfer of obstacles to the instant project owned by the Defendant in the said project area, but failed to reach an agreement, filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Committee”).
C. On February 11, 2019, the commission rendered a ruling of acceptance to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall expropriate the instant land, transfer the obstacles on the land, and pay compensation of KRW 112,495,040 to the instant obstacles, etc., and each starting date of expropriation shall be April 8, 2019” (hereinafter “instant ruling of expropriation”).
The plaintiff completed the deposit following the acceptance ruling of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1-3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of claim, the Plaintiff paid full compensation for losses to the Defendant upon the adjudication of the Land Tribunal as the implementer of the instant project.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant obstacle to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 43 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).
B. The Defendant did not make any reasonable compensation for the obstacles of this case.