logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.21 2014가합513846
매매대금반환
Text

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased from Defendant B for KRW 194,00,000 from Defendant B, Seopo-si E, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to Defendant B on the same day.

(2) Article 35(1)2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; Article 13(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; Article 15(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; Article 15(2)2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; Article 15(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; Article 15(2)2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration, etc. requires permission only where an act subject to permission does not affect the preservation and management of cultural heritage and meets the standards such as not damaging the historical and cultural environment.

(Article 36 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act). On September 6, 2013 and January 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the alteration of the current state of State-designated cultural heritage in accordance with the relevant statutes to construct a photographer on the instant land, but was not permitted on the grounds that it is likely to damage the preservation area of the historic and cultural environment surrounding the Jeju Unborn Site.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, and Gap evidence Nos. 10-1, and the result of the fact-finding of the court's Western market, and the purport of the whole pleading as to the plaintiff's assertion of revocation of determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Eul as to the claim against the defendant Eul, the plaintiff's assertion that the land of this case was purchased from the defendant Eul in order to newly construct a photographer, and that the land was a place where a building could not be constructed in the vicinity of the habitat as a natural monument No. 27.

arrow