beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,283,70 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from February 8, 2017 to November 21, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) Project approval and public announcement - Urban environment rearrangement project name (hereinafter referred to as “project in this case”) - Public announcement of project implementation authorization on July 26, 2012 - Project implementer: Defendant
B. Adjudication on expropriation made on February 26, 2016 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City: The date of expropriation: April 15, 2016 - Each land indicated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” in the annexed sheet of land and compensation (hereinafter “each land of this case”): The compensation for expropriation is indicated in the annexed sheet of land and compensation.
[This case’s land in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) shall be indicated only as “OO-O land” when specifying land in the following:
In relation to the current situation, a private road is actually opened, which is a de facto passage used by residents as a passage for a long time, and it is reasonable to evaluate it as a "road" because it is a de facto passage used by residents as a passage.
“Determination”
[c] The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on objection (Service on January 5, 2017) on December 22, 2016 - Compensation for expropriation: The term “compensation for objection” in the list of annexed land and compensation money is as stated respectively. 【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, and Party A’s evidence 1 through 4 (if a land number is available, each entry in the number of numbers, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The issue of this case is that the land category is “site,” and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff reasonable compensation premised on the land category (if the assertion on this part is not accepted, then the assertion on this part is included as follows 2). As to each of the instant land, the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on the objection does not properly reflect the surrounding conditions, utilization, rate of land prices, current status of real transactions, etc. of each of the instant land, and thus, does not reach a reasonable compensation.