이의신청기각처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by C (the date of birth injured by resident registration: D).
1. Details of ruling;
A. The plaintiff is a naturally created clan, the descendants of which are the descendants of F.
The Defendant Intervenor is a housing redevelopment project partnership whose establishment is registered on September 8, 2004 by the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Seongdong-gu”) in order to implement a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) whose business area covers 24,796m2 in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 15, 2003, and whose establishment registration has been completed on September 21, 2004.
B. On March 13, 2006, the head of Seongdong-gu announced the project implementation authorization for the instant project to the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and announced the project implementation authorization on March 16, 2006 through H announcement of Seongdong-gu on March 16, 2006, and then announced the project implementation authorization on January 17, 2013 to I public announcement of Seongdong-gu on January 17, 2013.
The “detailed description of land and buildings to be expropriated or used” of the project implementation authorization publicly announced as of January 17, 2013 includes the building and obstacles to the purport of the claim owned by the plaintiff in the instant project area (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building, etc.”).
C. On March 28, 2013, the Defendant Intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for adjudication of expropriation ordering the relocation of the instant building, etc. (hereinafter “application for adjudication of expropriation”). On June 14, 2013, the Defendant rendered a ruling of expropriation on August 2, 2013 regarding the instant building, etc. on which the date of commencement of expropriation was August 2, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant acceptance ruling”) D.
The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the ground that the adjudication on expropriation was unlawful, but the Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on May 22, 2014.
(hereinafter “instant rejection ruling”). E.
On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff designated the Central Land Expropriation Committee as the Defendant and revoked the instant dismissal ruling.