logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나1645
손해배상
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, either in the absence of a dispute between the parties, or in the entries or videos of Gap evidence 1 to 8, 10, 11, 20, and Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including the serial number).

On April 22, 2011, the Plaintiffs purchased the answer C, 2,529 square meters and D response 2,378 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as co-owners each 1/2.

B. The Plaintiffs did not obtain permission from the Defendant for development activities, and filled up the instant land at a height of 1.5 meters, 6,000 square meters, and set the lease period of the instant land to E on May 2, 201, and leased rent at KRW 1,00,000 for one year, and E cultivated bean on the instant land.

C. On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff A drafted a letter of authorization to the Defendant that “I, without permission for development, make it possible for the Defendant to illegally fill the instant land at a height of 1.5 meters and complete reinstatement by October 31, 201.”

On September 19, 2011, the Defendant issued the first corrective order to restore the instant land to its original state by October 31, 201 pursuant to Article 60(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, on the ground that “The instant land is a quasi-industrial area of not less than 50 centimeters and is subject to permission for development activities (land form and quality alteration) in accordance with Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning and Utilization Act”).

E. On October 20, 201, the Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the foregoing first corrective order, and the alteration of the form and quality of the instant land to the Defendant on October 20, 201 constitutes “change in the form and quality for farming,” and thus, a corrective order is unlawful on the ground that it falls under the proviso of Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning

arrow