logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.09.11 2014구합3991
재결신청 지연가산금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project title - Project name: B redevelopment rearrangement project - Project implementation authorization: Defendant - Project implementation authorization: August 16, 2007 - Public notice of project implementation authorization on August 22, 2007: C public notice of Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City on August 22, 2007, and July 9, 2014

B. (1) On August 19, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for adjudication with the Plaintiff, etc.) on August 19, 2013, the Busan Southern-gu E-do and the above ground buildings and the F-scale 2 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) From August 26, 2013 to August 30, 2013, the consultation period between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff holding the said real estate was determined as KRW 1,386,16,05 and the consultation on the acquisition of the said real estate was held (the first consultation). However, the Plaintiff did not comply with the said consultation on the ground that the compensation was set at low. (2) Accordingly, on December 19, 2013, the Defendant again proposed that the consultation period between the Plaintiff was between December 19, 2013 and December 24, 2013, by setting the consultation period as KRW 1,407,126,725 and the consultation on the acquisition of the instant real estate (the second consultation). However, the Plaintiff deemed that the said consultation amount was too insufficient and applied for the adjudication to the Regional Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Local Land Expropriation Committee”).

3) However, on May 7, 2014, the Defendant, without filing an application for a ruling with the local Land Tribunal, proposed that the consultation period from May 11, 2014 to June 10, 2014 was set as KRW 1,577,201,601, and agreed on the acquisition of the instant real estate, but the Plaintiff did not accept it (third consultation), but filed an application for a ruling on the acquisition of the instant real estate with the local Land Tribunal on July 11, 2014.

arrow