건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the Defendant’s argument emphasized or added by this court as to this case’s assertion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(However, the parts against the Codefendant B, C, E, F, G, and H in the first instance trial, which was separately determined, are excluded; 2. Additional or supplementary judgments
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff did not have a legitimate source of claim since it obtained a new approval of the management and disposal plan after obtaining a modified approval of the project implementation plan on April 19, 2018.
(2) The defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim on the ground that he did not receive compensation or agreed on compensation under the Land Compensation Act from the plaintiff.
B. (1) The project implementation period set out in the project implementation plan established by the maintenance and improvement project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents was excessive.
Even if an effective project implementation plan and the legal effect of the implementation of a project, including the purchase and expropriation of land, conducted within the project implementation period, is retroactively null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du34905, Dec. 1, 2016). Since an administrative act is of a conflict of fairness and infinite, even if there is a defect in such an administrative act, if there is a defect of illegality, it cannot be denied its validity merely on the ground that there is an illegal cause unless the administrative act is lawfully revoked by administrative litigation or other administrative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du15626, Jul. 23, 2009).