beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 99,619,200 as well as 5% per annum from August 15, 2015 to July 21, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: B housing redevelopment improvement project - Public announcement of business approval: The defendant on April 11, 2013;
B. Adjudication on expropriation made on June 26, 2015 by the local Land Tribunal of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City: The expropriation object: Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) with a size of 453 square meters, F large 96 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, and the obstacles to each of the instant land, buildings on the ground, and various trees, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant obstacles”): The starting date of expropriation: August 14, 2015: 2,329,501,080 won (hereinafter referred to as “compensation 1,789,350,000 won for E land”), and compensation 25,360,000 won for F land)
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on January 21, 2016 – 2,377,979,300 won (i.e., compensation for the land of KRW 1,823,981,850 for the land of KRW 267,043,200 for the land of KRW 286,954,250 for each of the obstacles of this case) to increase the compensation for damages for each of the obstacles of this case (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute over the compensation for each of the obstacles of this case, entry in the evidence of subparagraphs A1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On June 26, 2015, the Seoul Land Tribunal’s adjudication of expropriation (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) and the adjudication of objection on January 21, 2016 by the Central Land Tribunal (hereinafter “instant adjudication”); together with the said adjudication of expropriation, the “each of the instant adjudication.” Furthermore, the appraisers who made the said adjudication did not fully reflect the actual transaction price and market price of each of the instant lands and obstacles, thereby failing to properly assess the compensation for the relevant losses.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the compensation that was not reasonably assessed on each land and obstacles of this case.
B. Determination 1: (a) No. 1 and No. 1 of the instant compensation for losses on each of the instant land.