beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 16,919,577; KRW 8,459,788 for each of the Plaintiff B and C; and the Defendant’s response thereto from March 10, 2017 to March 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) An urban development zone (title: D urban development zone; hereinafter “instant development zone”) under the Urban Development Act on November 20, 2004, with the area of 484,92.5 square meters in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-dong and F-dong, Seoul.
The development plan was designated and approved by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s aforementioned urban development project (hereinafter “instant project”).
(2) The Defendant, on October 31, 2005, publicly announced the compensation plan, set the base date for the relocation measures on November 29, 2003, and publicly announced the relocation measures on April 13, 2006, and newly constructed and sold 1,150 apartment houses (hereinafter “instant apartment”) including special housing within the instant development zone.
3) The development area of the D Urban Development Project is 484,92.5 square meters for the development area of the D Urban Development Project, 261,619 square meters for the paid supply area, and 223,373.5 square meters for the free supply area. (b) The Plaintiff and the removal residents offered real estate for the public works as they are incorporated into the project district of D Urban Development Project implemented by the Defendant, etc., and provided the real estate for the public works. (c) The Defendant notified the Plaintiff and A of the special supply of national housing and the transfer registration of ownership into the subject of special supply, and the Plaintiff and A entered into a multiple sale contract with respect to the instant apartment 206 603 square meters for the instant apartment 206 dong 801 (hereinafter referred to as the “sale contract”).
() Under the Defendant’s approval, G transferred the status of the instant parcelling-out contract to Plaintiff B and C each of one-half shares. The Plaintiffs paid in full the sales price set forth in the instant parcelling-out contract to the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the above apartment buildings. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, i.e., evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 4-1, 4, evidence No. 5-1, 4, evidence No. 5-1, 4, 6-8, and evidence Nos. 3 through 8
2. It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
3. The plaintiffs' arguments are public works.