beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Among the lawsuits in this case, the administrative vicarious execution succession disposition dated May 29, 2013 is to be taken.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. At the time of leisure, the Plaintiff owned each obstacles indicated in the separate sheet of goods attached to both land B and C (hereinafter “instant obstacles”).
B. On December 21, 201, the Defendant, as an implementer of an industrial complex development project (hereinafter “the instant project”), tried to consult with the Plaintiff on the transfer of obstacles attached to each of the above land incorporated into the project district, but did not reach agreement, applied for adjudication of expropriation to the Central Land Expropriation Committee on December 21, 201. On April 6, 2012, the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) rendered a ruling of expropriation with the purport that “the project implementer shall have the instant obstacles transferred for the instant project, the compensation shall be KRW 147,704,470, and the date of commencement of expropriation shall be KRW 147,70, and the compensation shall be May 30, 2012” (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”).
C. On May 22, 2012, the Defendant deposited KRW 143,511,060 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Plaintiff, among the amount of KRW 147,704,470 of the instant compensation, the Defendant reserved the amount of KRW 125,93,410 calculated by deducting the amount of seized claims against the Plaintiff at the time of leisure from KRW 147,70,470 (in case of enforcement claim: KRW 3,854,000 + KRW 339,410) from the amount of seized claims against the Plaintiff, and subsequently, the Plaintiff paid KRW 143,51,060 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).
The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee by asserting that it is dissatisfied with the instant adjudication of expropriation and raised compensation for losses in accordance with the reality, but the Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on August 10, 2012.
E. The Defendant, on November 21, 2012, stated that “the Plaintiff raised objection until December 2, 2012.” to the Plaintiff.