logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.26 2015가합548887
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant is each corresponding money as stated in the "amount of personal seal" column of the attached list to the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On May 7, 2005, the size of 217,692 square meters, including the implementation of the Defendant’s Nnational Rental Housing Complex development project, was designated as a district for national rental housing complex under the former Act on Special Measures for the Construction, etc. of National Rental Housing (wholly amended by Act No. 9511, Apr. 21, 2009) by the PP publicly notified by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. The designation and implementation plan was approved on December 29, 2005 by Q2 publicly notified by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the Defendant was designated as the implementer of the NN Rental Housing Complex development Project (hereinafter “instant project”).

On June 20, 2006, the defendant divided the subjects of the relocation measures into the housing owner on his own land in the project district of this case, the housing owner on another's land, and publicly announced the compensation plan and the relocation measures for the project of this case, which contain the contents that grant them the right to move into apartment units

The Defendant, such as the special supply of apartment units to the Defendant’s person subject to relocation measures, decided to provide the Plaintiffs with a special supply of N1, 2 apartment units (hereinafter “the apartment units of this case”) within the instant project zone, as relocation measures for 12 Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff B and the Plaintiff B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs,” without distinguishing the network R and the Plaintiff B, unless it is indicated separately, as seen in the front and rear) that the housing units, etc. owned by the Defendant would lose their base of living due to the execution of the instant project.

The Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant that each of the relevant households stated in the column for “the same unit area” of each relevant site area as stated in the separate sheet among the apartment buildings in this case, that the purchase price was sold in lots in the amount corresponding to each of the relevant units stated in the

The term "each household of this case, each unit of sale, and each unit of sale in this case, including the above household, unit of sale, and unit of sale."

arrow