Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Selection, etc. of persons eligible for livelihood countermeasures;
A. In implementing a housing site development project on April 2008, the non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation shall inform the non-party to the implementation method of the relocation plan that the supply of the re-resident housing site, the special supply of housing, and the payment method of the resettlement subsidy, and the person to be supplied with the housing site
2. A person who receives any business compensation;
3. Selection of persons who have received agricultural compensation of a certain scale or scale;
As to the size of land and supply subject to supply, “to provide the level of 20 square meters in neighboring living facilities sites or 27 square meters in neighboring commercial areas.”
B. On September 19, 2017, Nonparty Korea Land and Housing Corporation notified the original residents, including the Defendant, to be subject to D livelihood countermeasures, and accordingly, the Defendant acquired the right to be supplied with the land for livelihood countermeasures (hereinafter “instant land for livelihood countermeasures”) from Nonparty Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant land for purchase”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the main and ancillary claims
A. On February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff, via Nonparty E, concluded a contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant purchase price of KRW 20,000,00 for the purchase of the instant purchase right as indicated in the separate sheet as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, with respect to the Defendant, the Plaintiff, first of all, seeks for the implementation of the procedure to succeed the status of the Plaintiff as a C member who acquired attached real estate so that the Plaintiff would purchase the instant land for countermeasures in accordance with the purchase and sale contract for the instant purchase right, and, first, seek for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price in the event that the sale contract for the instant
B. We examine the validity of the sales contract of this case, and whether the Defendant entered into a contract for the sale of the instant several tickets to the Plaintiff before considering the validity of the sales contract of this case, evidence No. 4.