logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2021.01.13 2020구단11252
이주대책대상부적격처분 취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The defendant shall develop the industrial complex development project [B national industrial complex development project; hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case").

On August 10, 2016, the public announcement of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (D) made a public announcement of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on August 10, 2016, and on May 2, 2017, the public announcement of the approval of the industrial complex planning E was made

F The G Land and its ground buildings (hereinafter respectively referred to as the “instant land” and the “instant building”) in Jinju-si located within the industrial complex zone.

On December 18, 2018, the Plaintiff owned and resided in B, and died on December 18, 2018. The Plaintiff, a deceased person, by division of inherited property consultation, inherited the land and buildings solely, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 16, 2019.

Around May 2018, F, before the death of F, the Defendant provided guidance including relocation measures, and the period of compensation consultation was set from May 31, 2018 to July 20, 2018, which did not result in an agreement on compensation for the instant land and buildings.

On March 14, 2019, there was a ruling of expropriation on March 14, 2019, stating the owner as F, and on April 11, 2019, the name of the owner was corrected from F to the Plaintiff.

The defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on May 29, 2019 on the instant land and building on May 29, 2019.

On August 1, 2019, the Defendant announced the establishment and implementation of the relocation measures of the instant project, and decided the criteria for the selection of eligible recipients on August 10, 2016, which is the date of public announcement of the base date for the relocation measures. The Defendant continued to possess and reside in the relevant project district from before the base date to the date of conclusion of the indemnity agreement or the date of adjudication on expropriation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff applied for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures to the Defendant, but the Defendant, on April 24, 2020, notified the Defendant of the lack of the person subject to relocation measures on the ground that the Plaintiff had not resided in the instant building from August 10, 2016, which was the base date for relocation measures, to the date of conclusion of indemnity agreements or the date of adjudication on expropriation (hereinafter “instant notification”).

arrow