beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 287,262,80 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 22, 2015 to May 11, 2016.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: Bogeumjari Housing project (BB district second (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”);
- Project operator: Defendant - Project operator’s public notice of project implementation authorization: D public notice issued by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 26, 2010, October 14, 2014
(b) The date of expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on February 26, 2015 - The date of expropriation on April 21, 2015: E- 1,750 square meters, F-1 square meters, G 1,768 square meters, and H 11 square meters, owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”; hereinafter the same shall apply) - Compensation amounting to KRW 956,530,70 (E: 72,100,000; 837,90 won: G land: 182,457,600 won; and H land: 1,135,200 won)
(c) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on September 17, 2015 - Compensation: Total amount of KRW 1,223,114,50 (E land: KRW 772,275,00; KRW 841,450; KRW 447,215,600; KRW 2,782,450; KRW 2,782,450: H land): The Central Appraisal Corporation, a stock company, a future appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “interested appraiser,” and the result of the appraisal is referred to as “the result of appraisal”): The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition”), Gap’s evidence 1,22, Eul’s evidence 1-1,2, Eul’s evidence 1-2, and Eul’s evidence 3-1, 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, the purport of the arguments.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) As the compensation should be calculated based on the result of the court’s appraisal regarding the land of this case as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant should pay the difference between the appraisal result of this case’s appraisal to the Plaintiff. 2) As to the Defendant’s assertion (a) as to (a) G and H land, the land category of the said land was not actually used as farmland, and thus, the court’s appraisal did not indicate the street conditions at the time of the assessment of individual factors of the said land.
2. (Environmental Conditions) With respect to G and H land, the said land was actually used as a site for a fish farm and its surrounding areas.