logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.10.20 2014구합1800
수용재결처분무효확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claim against the local land expropriation committee of Gyeongnam-do and the defendant corporation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Project name: D Urban Planning Road (E; hereinafter referred to as “instant road”)

3) Part of the Construction Work (hereinafter “instant Project”)

(2) Notice: F in December 3, 2008; G in December 19, 201; H 3 in January 11, 2013; Defendant Company

B. The instant expropriation adjudication 1): B forest land B/Do 91 square meters and C/C forest land 298 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) at a oly city

(2) The date of commencement of expropriation: Compensation for losses on July 21, 2014: 59,903,500 won: 4) An appraiser: An appraisal corporation of a stock company, a national appraisal corporation of a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) [based on recognition]; a dispute is not raised; entries in Gap’s 1, 3, 4, and Eul’s 1 and 2; and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. According to Article 85(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), where an administrative litigation is a lawsuit seeking the increase of compensation, if the person who files the lawsuit is a landowner or person concerned, the project operator shall be the defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim ultimately seeks the increase of compensation for losses, and the Defendant Committee is not entitled to the defendant, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Committee is unlawful.

However, the Plaintiff asserted that the compensation for losses should be increased against the Defendant Company as seen below, and at the same time, asserted the illegality of the adjudication on expropriation of the instant case against the Defendant Committee, and sought its invalidation or revocation. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Committee cannot be deemed as a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation.

Therefore, the above argument of the defendant committee is without merit.

B. Determination on the defendant company's defense

arrow