beta
Text
1. The part concerning the claim for compensation due to a decrease in the price of the remaining land among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff 14.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business authorization and public notice - Road project name: Road project (B. 5 Sections 3; hereinafter “instant project”) and the area related to the said project (hereinafter “instant project”): Project implementer: Primary Regional Land Management Office under the defendant - Public notice of project implementation authorization: C public notice of March 4, 2010
B. The Central Land Expropriation Commission’s ruling on expropriation on March 20, 2014 - The date of expropriation: May 13, 2014 - The Plaintiff’s livestock industry (hereinafter “the instant land” and the land number is specified) operated on the ground, such as the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and the livestock industry (hereinafter “the instant business facilities”) operated on the Plaintiff’s land due to the Plaintiff’s project, including the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 335,223,00,00, and the sum of the instant obstacles and business compensation amounting to KRW 539,436,00 [the Plaintiff” and “the instant business facilities” related thereto.
) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the compensation for the closure of business is necessary is rejected and calculated as compensation for suspension of work. In other words, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the compensation for the closure of business is necessary should be calculated as compensation for suspension of work. In other words, the sum of the transfer cost of the instant business and high-amount separation season, Track, rectangular destruction, Track, etc. 265,500,000)
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on October 23, 2014 - Compensation - Total amount of KRW 335,223,00 (Dismissal of the objection against the ruling on expropriation in this part) and total of KRW 539,486,00 (the Plaintiff’s assertion that the compensation for business closure of the instant business, like the ruling on expropriation, is necessary) is not accepted. In other words, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant obstacles are 276,986,000, and the instant business and the high-amount separation period, 262,50,000,000).