수용재결취소 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant real estate (the following part of the color roof of photographs, and the right behind the vehicle).
B. Around May 2014, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor decided to remove and rebuild B after being designated and publicly notified as a disaster risk facility as a result of a thorough safety inspection conducted by B located adjacent to the instant real estate.
C. On July 9, 2015, the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Seongbuk-gu”) published a decision on the alteration of an urban management plan and a topographical map (hereinafter referred to as the “instant urban planning”) to extend the scope of the road necessary to install bypass temporary bridges for the removal and remodeling of the zone B, etc., and the instant real estate was included in the relevant planned zone.
In addition, on November 19, 2015, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City announced the implementation plan on November 19, 2015 (see Article 96(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act), notified the modification of the implementation plan on June 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant implementation plan”), and included the instant real estate in land or goods to be expropriated or used.
The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement of the compensation plan on January 29, 2016, and notified the plaintiff of the compensation plan.
On June 9, 2016 and July 13, 2016, the head of Seongbuk-gu Office sent a door to request the Plaintiff to hold a consultation on compensation for losses on two occasions.
E. The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City applied for the acceptance ruling to the defendant.
On March 9, 2017, the Defendant determined the amount of compensation for losses on the instant real estate as KRW 205,090,000, and the starting date of expropriation as of May 2, 2017.
(hereinafter “Disposition of Acceptance of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition of acceptance of the case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion is in this case.