beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,326,040 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 23, 2017 to October 24, 2018.
Reasons
1. Details, etc. of ruling;
(a) Authorization for project implementation, etc. - Project name: B housing redevelopment rearrangement project - Project implementer: Defendant - Public notice of authorization for project implementation: Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice of August 16, 2013;
B. Adjudication on expropriation made on December 23, 2016 by the local Land Expropriation Committee of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City: Ddong (hereinafter “Ddong”) E site and obstacles to neighborhood living facilities, etc. on its ground (hereinafter “instant site” and “instant obstacles,” and “the instant objects of expropriation”): The starting date of expropriation: 569,547,340 won on February 10, 2017 (i.e., KRW 465,593,00 on the instant site) (i.e., KRW 103,954,340)
(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on November 23, 2017 - Compensation for losses: 593,743,720 won (i.e., the instant obstacles in the instant case in KRW 487,743,00,00 for the instant land) - The adjudication appraiser of the objection: F in charge of the dispute resolution and the G.
D. The court appraiser of the appraiser H’s appraisal result (hereinafter the above appraiser “court appraiser,” and the above appraisal “court appraisal”) selected as a comparative standard site (use status: a detached house: a specific use area: a specific use area; a specific use area; a specific use area; a specific use area; a specific use area: a specific use area; a road traffic law: a small area: a small area; a bridge) and calculated the trial score politics in consideration of the fluctuation rate. After comparing regional factors and individual factors, the court appraiser calculated and applied the compensation amount on the basis of the above expropriation ruling based on the transaction case of the J land adjacent to the region and calculated the compensation amount on the basis of the above expropriation ruling.
On the other hand, the court appraiser responded to the appraisal result that the obstacles of this case were destroyed and failed to fully secure objective and reliable materials to the extent that they could be able to conduct an on-site investigation without conducting an on-site investigation.