beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. From April 18, 2013 to January 25, 2017, Plaintiff Sam Steel Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 430,267,800 and its amount.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) A project approval and public announcement, etc. - A Bogeumjari Housing District Development Project (the fourth, fifth, the fifth project): the defendant - Public announcement, No. 2009-1140, Apr. 27, 2010, announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2010-244, Apr. 17, 2012, No. 2012-187, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on Apr. 3, 2009;
B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on February 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant ruling of expropriation”): ① obstacles and operating losses in the attached Table 1 owned by 29-2 Plaintiff Samm Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Samm Steel”); ② obstacles in the attached Table 2 to the ownership of the Association of Korea (hereinafter “Plaintiff church”) established over the 130-5 ground of Simhsan in Simti City (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) - Compensation for expropriation: ① Total sum of compensation for Plaintiff Samm Steel Co., Ltd. (business compensation amount, KRW 1,68,371,510, KRW 1,395,454,690, KRW 281, KRW 200, KRW 3,083,826, and KRW 200 (business compensation amount, KRW 1,688, KRW 510, KRW 281,59, KRW 90, KRW 1590, KRW 137,000.
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) dated November 21, 2013 - ① Dismissal of an objection filed by the Plaintiff Samyang Steel, ② Increase the compensation to the Plaintiff church to KRW 294,837,100 - An appraisal corporation: Japanese appraisal corporation, future appraisal corporation, large-day appraisal corporation (based on recognition), and the fact that there is no dispute between the appraisal corporation, Gap’s evidence 2 and 3, evidence 1 through 4, evidence 2 through 5, respectively, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Since the judgment of the 1rd party's assertion contains an error of law that excessively lowers the amount of compensation for obstacles and business losses owned by the plaintiffs, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation determined by the court's appraisal, and compensation for delay.