beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's action against the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall be dismissed.
2. As to the Plaintiff’s leisure market.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff is a person who has run a liquefied petroleum gas sales business (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name “C” from the land of 296m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
Project approval and announcement: The project operator of the urban planning facility project (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case"): The public notification of the defendant: E on April 5, 2007, the F in the public notification at the time of leisure on December 13, 201, and G Jeonnam-do Land Expropriation Committee's expropriation ruling date on December 26, 2013: March 21, 2014: 15,000,000 won of operating losses compensation for the project in this case: The date of this ruling by the defendant Committee's objection on May 12, 2014: The business closure claim for the plaintiff's business closure of the business in this case is dismissed on the grounds that it is possible to move to the Si/Gun/Gu where the business in this case is located, and the date of adjudication on expropriation: the purport that the lawsuit against the defendant in this case can be raised ex officio as the whole, and the purport that the lawsuit against the plaintiff in this case is legitimate.
The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Committee’s calculation of compensation for business losses for the instant business based on compensation for suspension of work is illegal, and sought compensation for business losses against the Defendant, a business operator, based on the compensation for closure of business.
The Plaintiff’s claim is practically seeking an increase in business loss compensation, and the Plaintiff’s claim should be made against the Defendant’s leisure market, the project implementer, pursuant to Article 85(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).
Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant committee is unlawful because there is no standing for defendant or there is no benefit of lawsuit.
The judgment on the claim against the defendant's leisure market is made.