beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport and purport of the appeal
1. The purport of the claim;
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (except for the part concerning plaintiffs B and C in the first instance judgment) except for the plaintiff's additional assertion as to this case, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Although the publication price of the land of this case increases more than twice after the adjudication on expropriation of this case was rendered, the appraiser of the first instance court did not consider this and calculated the value of the land of this case at an unreasonably low level and infringed the Plaintiff’s property right.
B. In a lawsuit claiming the increase of compensation for losses, the burden of proving that the amount of compensation is more reasonable than the amount of compensation determined in the relevant judgment is the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12226, Oct. 15, 2004, etc.). In full view of the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations regarding the calculation of compensation for losses in the expropriation of land, the case of ordinary transaction of neighboring similar land does not necessarily have to be taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation for the fair compensation for the land to be expropriated, but it can be taken into account where there is a case of nearby similar land or a case of compensation and where it is proved that the price would have an impact on the adequate assessment of compensation for the land is normal, and the "normal price of neighboring similar land" is the price of land which is ordinarily formed with respect to land identical or similar to the land to be expropriated in the neighboring area of the land to be expropriated, not development gains, but is formed in the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da478, Feb. 27, 2001).