logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.11.27 2014가합26429
매매계약 무효 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2005, the Plaintiff is a party to the road construction project A with National Highway No. 34 on June 25, 2005 (hereinafter “instant road project”).

(B) Determination and public notice of road zones of Daejeon Regional Land Management Office was given to the Defendant on January 6, 2006, and the C-Housing Complex Construction Project by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on January 6, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant housing project”).

(2) On the other hand, pursuant to Article 81 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and Article 42(1) of the Management of the National Funds Act, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s divisional financial commissioner who acts on behalf of the Plaintiff in the affairs of compensation for the instant road works (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. The duplicate of incorporated land and the Defendant’s land expropriation 1) pursuant to each of the above public notices, each of the above land was incorporated into the road project and housing project in this case, and each of the above land was incorporated into the instant road project and housing project, because the land of this case was included in the land of this case and the land of this case with a size of 485m2, F field 371m2, G field 81m2, H field 54m2, J field 53m2, J field 43m2, and J field 16m2, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer from the land of this case on November 10, 206, in accordance with the procedure for consultation on public land acquisition (an existing 371m2, 97m2 in the existing 371m2), G field 80m2 (an existing 81m2, H54m2, 206m25, 168m206.

(hereinafter referred to as “the overlapping land of this case”) C

Around December 2006, the Defendant established an implementation plan for the housing project of this case. In the process, the Plaintiff should exclude the overlapping land overlapping with the land subject to the road project of this case from the housing project of this case.

arrow