토지 등 수용보상금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are apparent in records or obvious to this court.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the purport that the “M organization (owner on the registry of the instant real estate)”, each of the deposited money of KRW 214,163,750,00 for the expropriation compensation of KRW 1,405,560,00 for the F 442 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gyeyang-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Sungyang-gu, Sung-si, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant land”), was the same organization as the Plaintiff, and that the “M organization (owner on the registry of the instant real estate) sought payment of each of the above expropriation compensation” (UP), but the said court rejected the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on September 23, 2015, on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the expropriation compensation belonging to collective ownership property and passed a resolution at a general meeting of members.”
B. The plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff and appealed to the trial before the new trial (the court before the new trial added the conjunctive claim as above), but the court before the new trial on September 9, 2016 held that the plaintiff's lawsuit was legitimate on the ground that "no data was found that the plaintiff separately resolved on September 9, 2016 regarding the lawsuit of this case, including the conjunctive claim added at the general meeting of members, but the plaintiff's articles of incorporation can be recognized that the representative was entitled to comprehensive authorization as to the receipt of compensation for expropriation, the payment of compensation for expropriation, and the payment of compensation for expropriation or the filing of the lawsuit to confirm the right to claim the payment of the deposit payment." However, it is insufficient to recognize that the MM organization is identical to the plaintiff that formed the organization with only a specific resident of the place where it is separate from the natural village of this E, as its member."