beta
Text
1. The main claim for the revocation of the disposition of refusal of business compensation among the lawsuit of this case and the ancillary claim.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 2004, the Plaintiffs: (a) leased 20 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) among Nonparty D’s land buildings in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (b) from July 1, 2004 to July 1, 2006, the period of lease was determined as KRW 1 million a year; and (c) Plaintiff B registered the construction business with the trade name “E” as the location of the said C on September 2, 2004.
B. On May 24, 2005, the Minister of Construction and Transportation issued project approval and notification (F) as follows, and the instant building was included in the obstacles subject to expropriation and accepted to the Defendant.
- Business Name: G business name - Business Area: The defendant
C. On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff A filed a civil petition with the Plaintiffs for business compensation and designation of a person subject to relocation measures since he/she had been engaged in business in the instant building and suspended business due to expropriation. On November 11, 2013, the Defendant responded to the purport that the Plaintiffs were not business entitled to business compensation and a person subject to relocation measures on the ground that “the Defendant did not have human and physical facilities at the time of the implementation of the instant building, but did not have any value-added tax return on the establishment of the building, and no value-added tax return was made after the commencement of business.” As such, Plaintiff A’s business cannot be deemed as a business that had been continuously operated with human and physical facilities before the date of notification of the business approval, the Plaintiffs’ business
(hereinafter) The reply of this case refers to "the reply of this case", and the reply that the plaintiffs are not eligible for business compensation among the reply of this case is "the reply of non-scheduled business compensation of this case", and "disposition that is not eligible for the relocation measures of this case" is "disposition that is excluded from the person eligible for the relocation measures of this case") / [the grounds for recognition] without any dispute, Gap's statements in Articles 1, 7, 10, 2 and 3, and the purport
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' primary claims
(a)in this case;