208da62072 Registration of transfer of ownership

○○ (39 - 1)

Gwangju City

[Defendant-Appellant] Gyeong-gu et al.

Attorney 000

Dog Dog

The place of service is received at the cost

Representative Dog 00

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

April 29, 2009

May 27, 2009

1. The defendant received KRW 334, 970, and 00 from the plaintiff in order to the plaintiff, and followed the plaintiff in 00 - 0 - 2, 3, 21, 22, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 24, 13, 14, 14, 16, 15, and 15, in the order of the plaintiff in relation to the part (a) 1,634 meters in the ship (a) as a result of repurchase on June 0, 2008.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 00, 200, the Defendant acquired the amount of compensation of KRW 459,200,00 from the Plaintiff pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss (repealed by Act No. 6656 of February 4, 2002 and changed to the Act on the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works; hereinafter referred to as the "Public Works Act") to acquire the site for the project to hold the Doldong X-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "Project in this case").

B. On January 00, 2001, the Defendant: (a) changed the land of this case into 00 - 00 - 1,634 m2 (hereinafter, the repurchase part of this case); (b) 00 - 00 m2, 00 - m2, 00 - 00 m2, 00 - 00 - 00 - 600 m2, and 600 m2, and then adjusted the land cadastre; (b) however, the land cadastre was not registered on the register at present.

C. After acquiring the instant land, the Defendant opened a road for the said Ri 00 - 00 of the said Ri - The repurchase portion of the instant land is used as a temporary parking lot during the period of the exercise of the instant project by using the gravel as its sub-subsidiary for its original state around March 00, 2004, and currently, the repurchase portion of the instant land is used as follows.

(1) Part 972 on the ship (i) with each point described in the attached Form No. 22, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 24, 23, and 22 indicated in the attached Form No. 22, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 24, 23, and 22 are currently being used as the current status. The defendant leased it to the non-party A, who operates Dozian training center in the vicinity of May 0, 206, who leases it to the non-party A who operates Dozian training center in the vicinity, and uses it as the field of the

(2) Part (B) 156 meters in order to connect each point of 21, 22, 23, 24, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the same drawings

(3) 506 square meters in succession with each point indicated in the same drawing indication 1, 2, 3, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, and 1: Use as a parking lot for a building with the same 00 square meters and 1945 square meters adjacent to the instant repurchase portion owned by the Plaintiff;

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8 through 12 and video (including numbers), on-site verification results, results of on-site verification, results of survey appraisal, all purport of pleadings)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

(1) Relevant provisions

Article 91 (1) of the Public Works Act

Where all or part of the acquired land becomes unnecessary due to the discontinuation, alteration or other causes of the relevant project within 10 years from the date the land is acquired through consultation or the date the expropriation of land commences (hereafter in this Article referred to as the "acquisition date"), the landowner at the time of the acquisition date or his/her general successor (hereinafter referred to as the "redemption right holder") may repurchase such land by paying to the project operator an amount equivalent to the indemnity paid for the relevant land, within one year from the date all or part of the relevant land becomes unnecessary, or within ten years from the date the relevant land is acquired through consultation or the date the expropriation is commenced.

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, the repurchase portion of the land of this case which the defendant acquired through consultation for the business of this case was temporarily used as the site of this case at least after the original restoration on March 00, 2004, and thus, the part of this case was not used as the site for the business of this case, and the plaintiff exercised the right of repurchase by delivery of the part of this case within the legitimate period. Thus, the defendant was obligated to perform the procedure of repurchase registration on June 0, 2008, the delivery date of this case, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the defendant was paid the redemption money of 334,970,00 won ( = 459,200,000 x 1634/22400 x 1634/22400) from the original High Court.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) In the learning program operated by Nonparty A, the student’s educational foundation of △△△ Museum, which includes a student’s viewing process, and A attracting 68 and 203 group visitors from around 2005 to around 2007. Since the repurchase part of this case is not simply leased for the private interest of Party A, it is still being used for the purpose of attracting group visitors of the above △△ Museum, it is argued that the repurchase part of this case is still being used for the project of this case, but it cannot be deemed that the repurchase part of this case is being used for the project of this case solely based on the defendant’s above assertion. Thus, this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(2) The defendant is currently promoting the current history (exploitation) creation project, and the repurchase part of this case is expected to be used as the site, so it is argued to the purport that it is necessary for public works. However, the defendant's assertion cannot be seen as being included in the business scope of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(3) Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that the repurchase part of this case is limited to development activities because it is located within 300 meters from the △△ Protection Zone, it cannot be said that the repurchase part of this case is restricted to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of repurchase on the ground that the repurchase part of this case is limited to development activities. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

Judges Cho Jin-chul et al.