beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking an increase in the expropriation compensation for the land attached to Dongcheon-gun, Sincheon-gun, 952 square meters, D 1,768 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) owned by the Defendant due to B Corporation (hereinafter “instant project”), the Defendant concluded an agreement on the acquisition of each of the instant lands between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the acquisition of each of the instant lands, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on this case is unlawful.
Article 70 (1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor provides for the compensation of land acquired through consultation or adjudication for public works. According to Articles 30 (1) and 85 of the same Act, landowners, persons concerned, etc., may request a project operator to file an application for adjudication in writing, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if the consultation on the compensation fails to reach an agreement after a public announcement of project approval. Where they are dissatisfied with such adjudication, they may file an administrative litigation within 60 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication and within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication if they have filed an objection
In full view of the above provisions, in a case where an agreement on the acquisition of land has been reached between a landowner and a project operator, the landowner cannot file an application for adjudication or administrative litigation to increase the compensation for the land.
However, according to the evidence Nos. 12 and 1-2 of the evidence Nos. 12 and 1-2, it is recognized that consultation on the acquisition of each of the instant lands between the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant lands, and the Defendant, the implementer of the instant project, had been formed on April 19, 2012, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case
As to this, the plaintiff raised an objection to the defendant before and after the above consultation, the above consultation is formed.