logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.05.01 2012구합16412
보상금증액
Text

1. The Defendant: 15,223,830 won to Plaintiff A; 3,691,540 won to Plaintiff B; 3,691,540 won to Plaintiff C; and 6,190 won to Plaintiff D.

Reasons

(b) the facts of the basis;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: Private investment project (I private investment facility projects (hereinafter “instant project”): K publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on March 25, 201 - Project implementer: Defendant

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on February 18, 201 (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”) - L 96,730,170 remaining land and claim for the appraisal of the Plaintiff’s property subject to expropriation (wons): M 2 B (*) N 172,312,460 and claim for the purchase of the remaining land and claim for the depreciation of value: N 33(*) N 172,312,460 and claim for the redemption of value: P 4D 183,976,90 remaining land and claim for the redemption of value: Q, 5 U.S. 483,10,50, 50 T 572,50, 570, 500 U.S. 6, 509, 2930, 308, 2978, 308, 297, 304, 397, 308, 2974, 300

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The compensation for the subject matter of expropriation as set forth in the court's appraisal and the ruling of acceptance is less than just compensation for losses. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the difference between the compensation amount as set forth in the court's appraisal and the ruling of acceptance (the plaintiff's common assertion) and the compensation for delay thereof (the plaintiff's common assertion). 2) The project of this case has reduced the value of M,O, Q, R, which is the remaining land constituting the instant real estate and a group of land, so the defendant is obligated to compensate the

(Plaintiffs A, B, C, and D's assertion). (b)

It is as stated in the attached Form "relevant statutes".

C. In the lawsuit on the increase or decrease of the first claim for expropriation compensation, there is no illegality in both the result of the adjudication and the result of the court appraisal.

arrow