logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.21 2015구합66265
이주대책대상자제외처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who owned a wooden flag, a multi-story, and a mentblue roof, and a mentblue roof, a store building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) located on the land of Pyeongtaek-si B large 456 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and on the ground.

B. The instant land and buildings are located within the project zone of the C District, which is the housing site development project executed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant project zone”), and the Defendant, on December 23, 2005, announced for public inspection of the residents’ land designation, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 26, 2012 with respect to the instant land on December 29, 2010.

C. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant established relocation measures, such as supplying migrants’ housing sites or special houses, to the person who continued to own a house and have resided in the house continuously from before the date of public inspection for public inspection to the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication on expropriation, through a notice on the implementation of measures for resettlement and living of the district (hereinafter “instant notice”).

Then, on April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to select a person as a person subject to relocation measures, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is excluded from the person subject to relocation measures by failing to meet the requirements owned by

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant building was owned by the deceased, who was the husband of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the deceased”), was newly constructed on July 6, 1940, and owned by the deceased. However, the registration of ownership preservation is made.

arrow