손해배상 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the claims expanded in the trial are dismissed.
2. This is due to the extension of claims for the costs of appeal.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: ① Plaintiff A: ① Partial claim of KRW 10,000 out of KRW 132,39,100,000 among active damages; ② Partial claim of KRW 10,000 out of KRW 200,000, KRW 30,000; ② Plaintiff B: (b) Partial claim of KRW 10,541,000 among active damages; ② Partial claim of KRW 74,541,000 among KRW 74,00,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 10, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 3000, KRW 300, KRW 130,000, KRW 300, KRW 400, KRW 301,201, KRW 301,2194,200.
2. Additional determination
A. On July 8, 2010, a public official who belongs to the Plaintiff’s assertion made a criminal complaint twice against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the notification of removal was unlawful for the following reasons. A public official belonging to the Defendant made a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not comply with the above removal notification. The Defendant’s above removal notification and accusation are illegal acts that lack objective justification in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for each property and mental damage suffered by the Plaintiffs due to such unlawful acts committed by the public official belonging to the Defendant.
1) The instant dog shall be governed by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).
Article 56 (1) 1 of this Act and Article 51 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall not apply to "building" subject to permission for development activities.
Nevertheless, it is not possible.