토지수용철회청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the court of first instance.
1. On January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of expropriation of the above forest land against the Plaintiff on January 30, 2018, with the first instance court having the Defendant as the primary Defendant in the first instance court, and the Defendant’s first instance court confirmed that the disposition of expropriation of B forest land No. 496 square meters against the Plaintiff was null and void. On January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of expropriation of the above forest land against the Plaintiff. The Republic of Korea as the primary Defendant and the Republic of Korea claimed payment of KRW 80,00
The court of first instance dismissed all the conjunctive claims against the primary defendant and the conjunctive claims against the Republic of Korea, and dismissed the primary claims against the primary defendant against the primary defendant.
The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, but withdrawn an appeal against the conjunctive defendant from the Republic of Korea on the date of the first hearing of the court of first instance, and stated that the plaintiff did not appeal against the conjunctive claim among the primary defendant's claims against the primary defendant.
Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the main claim against the defendant (the part on confirmation of nullity of the disposition of expropriation of B forest land No. 496 square meters in the case of a public official).
2. The reasons for the court’s explanation on this part are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to using “the resident registration number” of the first instance judgment as “the resident registration number” of the fourth 4 pages in the first instance judgment, and using “the Defendant Committee” of the first instance judgment as “the Defendant” of the fourth 4 pages 11, 16, and 5 pages 2 as “the Defendant.” Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the reasoning of the first instance judgment.
3. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff would pay the property tax on the land of this case to the Plaintiff’s address every year.
If the head of the Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Agency confirms the property tax ledger, etc. of the Si/Gun/Gu, he/she shall have the same notwithstanding the fact that he/she could sufficiently verify