logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.23 2013구합21374
하천편입토지보상금청구
Text

1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiffs’ assertion that C was the Plaintiff’s fleet was 1,711 square meters and E return 2,824 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, and the land was 3,269 square meters in Pacific-gun (hereinafter “first land”), G return 722 square meters (hereinafter “second land”) and E river 9,336 square meters in 19,000,000 square meters in 1,71 square meters in 1,711 and 2,824 square meters in 2,000,000 in 2,000,000 square meters in 2,000 square meters in 2,000 in 2,00

However, each of the instant lands was incorporated into a river area before December 31, 1984 and reverted to the State. Meanwhile, the instant lands were owned by Plaintiff A, and the instant lands were owned by Plaintiff A, and the instant lands were owned by Plaintiff B under a share of inheritance agreement to be owned independently by Plaintiff B, and the Defendant is liable to compensate Plaintiff A for the damages for the lands Nos. 1 and 3 and compensate for the damages for the lands No. 2.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Prior to the filing of the Defendant’s assertion, with respect to the land Nos. 1 and 3, a settlement recommendation decision was finalized with the effect that the mortgagee, as the exercise of the right to subrogation, shall pay a certain amount of compensation in the process of the lawsuit, by filing a claim for compensation for losses against the Defendant. As to the land Nos. 2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for compensation for losses and received a final judgment in favor of the Defendant, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it goes

B. In full view of the legal nature of the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff A, the evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. 1 and No. 1, the claim for compensation against the Defendant is below the judgment against the lower court, by exercising the right of subrogation for the transfer of the said security into the river.

arrow