수용보상금 지급
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of obstacles, such as 1.4 square meters, etc., which are incorporated into “B-project for building roads around the B-project,” which is an urban planning facility project. The Defendant, who is the project implementer, did not pay compensation up to the present day even though the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of acceptance of compensation of KRW 1,927,50 on February 20, 2006 with respect to the above obstacles.
2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
Where there exists a seizure and collection order against a claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. The same shall apply to cases where the State seizes the claim against the third debtor due to the disposition for arrears under the National Tax Collection Act.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48879, Nov. 12, 2009). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s seizure of KRW 1,927,500 of the Plaintiff’s claim for expropriation compensation on the ground of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in payment of indemnity as a disposition for arrears under the National Tax Collection Act on March 21, 2006. Thus, the Plaintiff’
3. As such, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as it is unlawful.