logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.03.23 2016구합11599
조정금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each land located at No. 142, 143-1, 59-3, and 142-7, Dong-dong, Gwangju Northern-gu (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

B. On July 3, 2012, the Defendant established an implementation plan for the cadastral resurvey project (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to the parcel of 555, including 142 units of land in Gwangju North-dong, Gwangju-dong, according to the Special Act on the Cadastral Resurvey (hereinafter “Cadastral”). On August 18, 2015, the Defendant determined the boundary of the cadastral resurvey by reflecting the increased or decreased area from the “previous land” column in the table below as the “determined land” column in the cadastral resurvey as the “final land” column in the table below (hereinafter “final land”).

C. On February 25, 2016, the North-gu Cadastral Resurvey Committee decided the adjustment amount to KRW 37,382,100 in total through the appraisal of the instant finalized land. On March 18, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 37,382,10 in total.

On April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection, and the North-gu Cadastral Survey Committee decided that the adjustment amount of the instant finalized land was KRW 36,200,900, as indicated below, according to the appraisal results by a joint appraisal corporation between the appraisal corporations (hereinafter “instant appraisal results”). On April 28, 2016, the Defendant issued a payment notice of KRW 36,200,900 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Attachment] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1 while expanding a convalescent hospital, the Plaintiff applied for the land No. 143-1 and No. 59-3, but the land No. 142. The instant appraisal committed an error in assessing the land as a group with the land above, and the land No. 143-1 and No. 599.

arrow