beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the conjunctive claims added in the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff has the right to dispose of the house of this case from September 10, 2004 to the actual disposal of the house of this case, and thus constitutes a person subject to the relocation measures, on different premise, the disposition of this case taken by the defendant without any reason against the plaintiff is null and void as it is significant and apparent.
B. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership or the right to dispose of the instant house on September 10, 2004 only with each of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 14 (including each of the numbers), and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff acquired the right to dispose of the instant house as alleged by the Plaintiff on or around September 17, 2004, since the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff only on or around April 17, 2006, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the instant house at that time, there are objective circumstances that do not constitute a ground for invalidation of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is nothing more than the assertion that the Plaintiff misleads the facts constituting the premise for the instant disposition, and therefore, whether the Plaintiff acquired the right to dispose of the instant house at any time or time can only be found only after detailed investigation into the facts. As such, even if there is a defect that misleads the facts as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be objectively deemed that such defect is a ground for invalidation of the instant disposition.
On the other hand, according to the statement No. 6, the defendant's disposition of this case is conducted against the plaintiff.