logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.06.01 2017가단515362
시설부담금 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2014, the Defendant: (a) constructed a public truck depot of 4,946 square meters in size, including urban bus parking lots and management Dongs, on the ground of 1240-17,33 square meters in Sejong-si, New-si, 1240-17 square meters (hereinafter “instant garage”); and (b) during that process, the Defendant constructed a road access road for access to 21,584 square meters in size, adjacent to the said public truck depot facilities (the Defendant is the owner thereof and the road management authority is the road; hereinafter “instant road”).

B. Around April 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to move to the instant road for the construction of the access road, and the Plaintiff completed the said relocation around June 2014.

C. On November 2015, the Defendant carried out the instant garage improvement project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road construction project”) by combining the said access road construction project and the said access road improvement project, and requested five relocations on the instant road for the said access road for the improvement project, and the Plaintiff completed five relocations on December 2016, the said five previous week (hereinafter referred to as the “instant previous week”).

The costs incurred by the Plaintiff in relocating the previous owner of the instant case are KRW 70,538,140.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant road construction is executed due to the instant garage construction executed by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant, who is the implementer of the instant garage construction under Article 91(1) of the Road Act, shall bear the relocation cost of the instant garage as it falls under “where appurtenant works become necessary due to other works or other acts” as stipulated in Article 90(3) of the Road Act.

B. The instant garage construction falls under road construction rather than other construction works, and the Plaintiff is subject to Article 90(2) of the Road Act.

arrow