수용재결취소등
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims against the primary defendant are dismissed.
2. Preliminary Defendant: 12,000. Plaintiff A
1. Details, etc. of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: C Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Project implementer: Defendant Cooperatives - Business approval: D public notice of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 16, 2013
B. The Defendant Committee’s ruling of acceptance on December 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant ruling of acceptance”) - Object of expropriation: Each obstacle in the “subject matter of expropriation” in the attached Table 1 column in the attached Table 1 [each partitioned building, which is the land of Songpa-gu Seoul E site (hereinafter “instant site”).
- Adjudication on expropriation (hereinafter “each expropriation object of this case”) - Compensation for losses, including the shares of site ownership and the section for common use of stairs, etc. - In addition to attached Table 1, the corresponding part is listed.
- The date of commencement of expropriation: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2420, Feb. 10, 2017>
(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on November 23, 2017 - The same shall apply to the relevant part in the attached Table 1.
- An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation at the time of the bankruptcy resolution, a certified public appraisal corporation at the time of the bankruptcy resolution [based] and there is no dispute, and each entry in Gap's 1 through 6, and 14, and the purport
2. Determination on the main defense of the Defendant Committee
A. The plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant committee by the defendant committee was omitted in the decision of expropriation of this case by calculating the compensation amount based on the reserved area for replotting, not on the registered area, but on the reserved area for replotting. This constitutes an increase or decrease of compensation and thus only the project operator can become the defendant. Thus, the lawsuit against the defendant committee is unlawful.
B. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant Committee’s calculation of compensation based on the reserved area for replotting, not on the registered area of the instant site, without any legal basis, is unlawful, and the conversion and conversion of the instant business method.