손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendant B Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association shall be the one of the claims added in the trial.
The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows: “The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”)” shall be deemed as “Gu Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Maintenance and Improvement Act”)”; and it shall be deemed as the reasons why the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the contents under the following paragraph (2).
In addition, the following matters shall be added to the end of the 15th sentence of the first instance judgment:
In the trial, the Plaintiff added the claim that “The amount of compensation that can be received if an application for adjudication is filed within the lawful project implementation period, as much as the ownership of the instant real estate was lost by the application for adjudication made at the time other than the lawful project implementation period, and the amount of compensation determined by the instant decision on expropriation may be deemed as an amount of property damage or unjust enrichment due to unlawful acts.” However, the claim for damages on the ground that ownership has been lost shall be calculated as at the time of loss of ownership, as long as the ownership should be calculated as the amount of damages should be calculated based on the time of loss of ownership, it is difficult to regard the compensation for expropriation decision made on the premise that the expropriation decision was made within the changed project implementation period (the changed project implementation period) as at October 23, 2014 to October 22, 2018, and there is no evidence to view that the amount of compensation determined by the instant decision on expropriation is less
In addition, the acceptance ruling of this case is an administrative disposition with fairness and constituent effect, so long as it cannot be viewed as a legitimate invalidation, it shall be effective in the civil procedure until it is legally revoked due to its validity as an administrative act, etc.