logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.12.19 2012가합201027
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2005, the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated and publicly announced the housing site development plan as a planned area for the housing site development project (hereinafter “instant project”) of the B B B B large-scale 586,835 square meters in Ansan-si as a planned area for the housing site development project (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The Korea National Housing Corporation (the Defendant comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the Korea National Housing Corporation on October 1, 2009; hereinafter “Defendant”) announced a compensation plan for the said project on March 20, 2006 as the project implementer of the instant project and decided to specially supply the land for detached houses, etc. in the project zone to be developed as one of the relocation measures for those who are deprived of their base of livelihood due to the said project (hereinafter “persons subject to relocation measures”).

C. Accordingly, on September 28, 2010, the Plaintiff, a person subject to relocation measures, entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 424,138,130 of the pertinent housing site (hereinafter “instant housing site”) at KRW 235.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

On March 10, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E to donate 1/2 shares of the instant housing site. On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, E, and the Defendant on March 15, 201 to succeed to the rights and obligations under the instant sales contract between the original Defendant corresponding to the said shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is a project implementer of the project of this case and bears the cost of installing basic living facilities in accordance with Article 78 (4) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter "former Public Works Act"), even though the defendant bears the cost of installing basic living facilities in accordance with Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act.

arrow