logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.01.16 2016구합69971
손실보상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant obtained approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 9(1) of the former Railroad Construction Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same) for the implementation of the B-U railroad construction project (hereinafter “instant project”), and on October 14, 2005, the Minister of Construction and Transportation announced the said implementation plan as C in the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 9(4) of the former Railroad Construction Act.

B. The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport approved the modification of the implementation plan of the instant project with the content of setting up 19.52 km in Suwon-si, Suwon-si E 394,731.2 square meters in Suwon-si, and 12 km in stations, etc. on May 8, 2014, and publicly announced the implementation plan to the Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on May 8, 2014

C. The Plaintiff is the owner of Suwon-si G land (hereinafter “previous land”). The previous land was partitioned into G and H or I on June 12, 2014, and the above H or I land was incorporated into the instant business zone. On December 22, 2014, the registration of creation of superficies was completed for the land incorporated into the instant business zone on the same day.

The Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for a judgment on compensation for losses, which did not lead to an agreement, on the ground that the part of the previous land owned by the Plaintiff was used, and that the previous land was not incorporated into the project area of the instant case among the previous land (hereinafter referred to as “refined land”) was incurred due to the fall in value and the cost of repairing defects, but did not reach an agreement.

E. On September 29, 2016, the Central Land Tribunal: (a) on the decline in the value of the remaining land, on the ground that it has been assessed as having no value decline in the remaining land as a result of appraisal by the Uniform Certified Public Appraisal Corporation and the Adodod Public Appraisal Corporation; and (b) on the defect repair cost,

arrow