beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In full view of the language and text of Articles 36(1) and 40(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9729, May 27, 2009); Articles 78(5) and (9) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same), and Article 54(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the compensation for the cost of relocating a residential building to the owner of a residential building under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9729, May 27, 2009), it is reasonable to
2. Based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that, in the case of the owner of a residential building, the standard date for determining the person eligible for compensation for housing relocation costs, as in the case of the tenant, should be the date of public announcement of the maintenance plan, which is when it became possible for residents, etc. to know that the project would be implemented by the public announcement of the maintenance plan, as in the case of the tenant, as in the case of the tenant, the standard date for compensation for the owner of the residential building in question should be March 20, 2006, which is the date of the second public announcement of the public announcement, on the premise that in the case of the project in question, the standard date for compensation for the owner of the residential building in question should be March 20, 206, which is the date of the second public announcement of the public announcement of the ownership of the building in question, the Plaintiff
3. Examining the reasoning and records of the lower judgment in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower judgment’s reasoning was somewhat inappropriate, but its conclusion is justifiable.
In addition, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the point of time of determining whether the owner of a residential building falls under the cost of relocation.
4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed.