손해배상(기)
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
A. The Plaintiff’s ground for appeal is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and the evidence submitted in the first instance trial (as stated in the evidence No. 30 and 40, and No. 16) presented in the first instance trial is examined, and the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance is justifiable.
Therefore, the court's reasoning of this case is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.
4)5)(5)(7)(7)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(
The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes that the Plaintiff had entered into force on December 20, 2018 after obtaining the approval of the project plan of this case are as follows: < Amended by Act No. 1501, Dec. 20, 2018> (1) Any person who intends to obtain the approval of the housing construction plan pursuant to Article 15 (1) or (3) of the Housing Act shall secure the ownership of the relevant housing construction site: Provided, That the same shall not apply to any of the following cases:
(iii) make a decision (including where such decision is deemed under Article 19(1)(5);
(ii)in the case of a housing association (other than a housing remodeling association) that implements a project jointly with a registered business operator pursuant to Article 5 (2), at least 95 percent of the relevant site area of the housing construction project required;
this section, Articles 22 and 23
[2] Where securing (where state-owned land is included, it shall be deemed that the land management authority submits to the project undertaker documents confirming that the relevant land is sold or transferred to the project undertaker, it shall be deemed that the secured site is secured, and Articles 22 and 23 of the Act.