logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.17 2013가합93925
부당이득금반환
Text

1. Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, S, and W’s Defendant SAD Corporation; claims against Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and Plaintiff H, I, J, and K.

Reasons

1. The scope of the judgment of this Court in respect of claims filed by Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, S, and W

A. Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, S, and W filed a claim against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, and submitted a written withdrawal of the lawsuit against the Defendants on September 29, 2014, which was after the closing of argument, to the Defendant Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seongdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seongdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 2, 2014, the foregoing Plaintiffs and the said Defendants’ lawsuit were concluded as the withdrawal of the lawsuit as above on October 2, 2014.

B. In addition, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government were served on September 30, 2014 and did not raise an objection to the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the above plaintiffs. The lawsuit between the above plaintiffs and Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was terminated by the agreement of the above defendants on October 15, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, on October 13, 2014, the fact that Defendant EAS Corporation and Seoul Special Metropolitan City consented to the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the said Plaintiffs is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the scope of judgment on the above plaintiffs is limited to the above plaintiffs' claims against defendant EA and Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. 1 Implementation of X urban development project) Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on November 10, 2003 (hereinafter “instant project”)

(2) On December 24, 2004, upon the designation of an urban development zone and approval of a development plan, Defendant SAD Corporation was designated as a project implementer, and approved the housing construction project plan on December 27, 2004, and the implementation plan for the urban development project was approved on December 27, 2004. (2) X urban development project was conducted from November 10, 203 to December 31, 2009.

arrow