beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the fourth to the fifth to the first to the second to the second to the second to the second to the following. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and
[2] According to the court’s appraisal of reasonable compensation for losses, the amount of reasonable compensation for the instant land is KRW 1,151,465,00,00, which is 47,821,750,00 (=1,151,465,000 won - 1,103,643,250 won recognized as a result of the appraisal of this case’s compensation for losses (i.e., 1,151,465,00 won)
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 47,821,750 won and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from May 5, 2017, which is the day following the date of expropriation, to June 26, 2018, which is the day of delivery of a copy of the application for change of claim and cause of claim in this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment
On the other hand, with respect to the above 47,821,750 won, the plaintiff shall claim damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment.
However, Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides, “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to contest the existence or scope of the obligation before the judgment of fact-finding that declares that the obligor has the obligation to perform the obligation is rendered, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent.”
Here, the "case where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to object to a dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation" refers to the case where the obligor's assertion in dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation is deemed to have considerable grounds.