beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,709,100 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 2,468,200 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from January 3, 2020 to each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
A. On April 30, 2019, the Minister of National Defense publicly announced the approval of a business plan for “C projects,” which is national defense and military installations projects pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Act on National Defense and Military Installations Projects (Notice D). (b) The head of the National Defense Headquarters, who is the implementer of a project to expropriate the National Land Expropriation Committee, applied for a ruling in order to acquire each land listed in the attached Table owned by the plaintiffs (hereinafter “each land subject to each expropriation of this case”), and the Central Land Expropriation Committee, on November 7, 2019, made a ruling on the commencement of expropriation of each land subject to each expropriation of this case on January 2, 2020 (hereinafter “instant ruling”).
(c)
The Plaintiffs filed an objection against the instant adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and on April 23, 2020, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling that changed the compensation for losses to each of the instant lands subject to expropriation into the amount indicated in the column of “compensation” in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant ruling”).
[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Since the amount of compensation determined in the judgment on the objection of this case by the plaintiffs is not significantly less than the market price, the court appraiser's appraisal of this case is sought to pay the difference between the compensation for losses and the compensation for losses as determined in the judgment on the objection of this case.
B. In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation on the market, there are several different appraisal and assessment in conflict with the same facts, and inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in any one of them, even if the court has employed any one of the appraisal or recognized only a part of them based on one of them, it is against the logical or empirical rules.