장애물 등의 이전과 제거 허가처분 취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.
1. The Governor of the Gyeonggi-do announced the establishment of a plan for an urban development project based on the designation of an urban development zone and the method of land substitution under the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to the area of 394,058 square meters (hereinafter “instant project”).
On July 4, 2013, the Defendant approved the establishment of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor, whose members are landowners in the instant project zone, and designated the Intervenor’s Intervenor as the project implementer of the instant project on July 22, 2013.
On September 25, 2015, the Intervenor approved the instant project implementation plan by the Gyeonggi-do Governor, and approved the instant project substitution plan from the Defendant on October 6, 2016, and designated the land substitution plan for the instant project within the instant project zone on November 11, 2016.
On June 12, 2017, the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal: (a) determined compensation for losses as KRW 298,523,550 on the items on the attached list on the land located in the instant project zone, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant items”); (b) decided on July 27, 2017 on the commencement date of the relocation or removal; and (c) the Defendant joining the Defendant deposited the Plaintiff as the depositee on July 24, 2017, by taking the Incheon District Court Branch Branch No. 2184, 2017 as the depositee.
On September 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Intervenor joining the Defendant to permit the transfer and removal of the goods above the land in the instant project zone, including the instant goods, pursuant to Article 38(2) of the Urban Development Act and Article 63(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, pursuant to Article 38(1) and (2) of the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Accordingly, the Defendant completed the relocation and removal of the instant goods by removing the buildings.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, video, and oral argument.