(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.10.10 2019구합11064

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.10.10 2019구합11064

손실보상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) project approval and public announcement - B residential environment improvement - C public announcement of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City on December 3, 2018 - Defendant:

(b) The adjudication of expropriation by the Gwangju Metropolitan City Land Tribunal on February 27, 2019 - The area to be expropriated: The area to be expropriated shall be 43 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”): - The date of expropriation: April 13, 2019 - Compensation for losses: the fact that there is no dispute over KRW 11,32,650 [based], Gap’s entries in subparagraphs 1, 2, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion is being used as the site, the adjudication of expropriation was erroneous on the premise that the instant land is being used as the road, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable compensation for losses and the compensation for losses as determined by the adjudication of expropriation.

3. In a lawsuit seeking increase in compensation for losses, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation as stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation or objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12226, Oct. 15, 2004). In full view of the purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 in the evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the land of this case can be recognized as having been changed to the category of land to be used as a road on July 5, 197 by applying for a change of land category to be used as a road on July 5, 197 and used as a road through the passage of adjacent land from around that time, and there is insufficient evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 8 alone to acknowledge the fact that the compensation for losses of this case is more than the amount of compensation as stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조판례

-대법원 2004. 10. 15. 선고 2003두12226 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.12.12 2018구합13599

-광주지방법원 2019.10.10 2018구합13650

-광주지방법원 2019.06.13 2018구합10187

-수원지방법원 2016.10.25 2015구합60410

-부산지방법원 2015.11.06 2014구합4062