beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,441,230 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 14, 2014 to July 29, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name (B): The defendant; and
B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on March 20, 2014 - Subjects of expropriation against the Plaintiff: obstacles listed in the attached list on the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D ground (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): Total 188,341,470 won - The date of commencement of expropriation: May 13, 2014.
The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on December 18, 2014 - The fact that there is no dispute over the change of the amount of compensation for the plaintiff to KRW 189,896,170 (applicable to recognition), Gap’s evidence 2, 3, Eul’s evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion of the objection of this case did not properly compensate the obstacles and operating losses of this case. Thus, the defendant should pay the difference between the compensation for losses reasonably calculated according to the court's appraisal and the compensation for losses under the ruling of this case to the plaintiff.
B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including the provisional number), and the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser E (the result of the appraisal as a result of the court appraisal), the appraiser E evaluated the compensation for the obstacles of this case as KRW 217,337,400 (including the compensation for business losses), and the result of the appraisal of this case (one appraisal corporation, one day), the result of the appraisal of this case (one day appraisal corporation, one appraisal corporation), the result of the appraisal of this case, and the result of the court appraisal, as prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, are deemed to have been evaluated lawfully. The most reasonable because the court’s discretion to adopt any appraisal result is the most reasonable.