beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 4 (hereinafter “instant land”) was owned by C, and around March 3, 2000, it was determined as a traffic plaza, which is an urban planning facility, B through the Gyeonggi-do public notice of the Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant initial decision”); and thereafter, on December 29, 2009, it was changed to a landscape green belt, which is an urban planning facility, by the determination of the urban management planning (Public notice E of Pyeongtaek-si) on December 29, 2009.
(hereinafter “instant decision for modification”. B. The term “instant decision” together with “the initial decision” is “each of the instant decisions”).
The Plaintiff purchased the instant land through the auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 29, 2012.
C. On January 2, 2015, C notified the Defendant of “the entire claim for damages and the claim for compensation arising according to each of the instant decisions regarding the instant land” to the effect that the Plaintiff was transferred to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 4-2, Evidence No. 3-1 to 3, Evidence No. 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The defendant's decision of this case was erroneous (the grounds for each illegality are as follows 3. A. 1).
As a result, C and the Plaintiff suffered damages from restricting the exercise of ownership of each of the instant lands. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the former owner of each of the instant lands and the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to claim damages from the former owner C, sought compensation equivalent to the rent of each of the instant lands, as stated in the purport of the claim, against the Defendant, and seek compensation for consolation money within the scope of claiming damages
B. Even if each of the decisions of this case was lawful, the restriction imposed on the land of this case goes beyond the social limit that the landowner should recognize. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the compensation for losses, such as the purport of the claim.
3. Determination.