beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.28 2014구합61539

축산업손실보상지급신청거부처분 등 취소 청구

Text

1. On October 23, 2014, among the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for the cancellation of non-disqualification of the person to be supplied with the land for livelihood countermeasures.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization, announcement, etc. - Business Name E (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): - Public announcement: F announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on August 5, 2008 - Business operator: Defendant - The establishment and public announcement of a compensation plan: February 2009;

B. On January 12, 2011, the Defendant requested the payment and return of the Defendant’s livestock industry compensation for losses to the Plaintiffs, upon consultation on compensation, notified the Plaintiffs that “the Plaintiff’s livestock industry’s livestock company was located within the development-restricted area and was not a legitimate place, and thus, the Plaintiff’s livestock industry compensation was erroneously paid.”

C. On October 23, 2014, the Central Land Expropriation Committee filed an application for adjudication with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on February 4, 2014 regarding the Plaintiffs’ claim for business compensation for each of the instant livestock industry.

Therefore, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the plaintiffs did not obtain permission, etc. to install livestock facilities, etc., even though each of the land in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter "each of the land in this case") located within the development restriction zone is located. D.

On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the supply of a living countermeasure site on the premise that each of the instant livestock raisers of this case constitutes a person eligible for the supply of a living countermeasure site. However, on January 12, 2016, the Defendant sent the Defendant’s reply to the effect that “as the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, it cannot be confirmed at present as to whether the person eligible for the supply of a living countermeasure site is a person eligible for the supply of a living countermeasure site” against the Plaintiffs on December 21, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant reply”).