logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.04.29 2019구단7663
주거이전비등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of land of 149m2 located in the area of the Gyeonggi-do Gwangju-si Seoul Special Metropolitan City B Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”). The Plaintiff registered the preservation of ownership on February 24, 1978 with respect to one unit of housing assessed by the relevant ground-based related to B (Road Name E) in Gwangju-si, Gyeonggi-do Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”), and the Defendant is an association established to implement the instant rearrangement project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On April 9, 2009, the Mine Name City announced a public announcement of the approval for project implementation to G to G to G to G to G to G to G to G to G to make a public announcement for the designation of the instant rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant public announcement”) on August 25, 2016, following the public announcement for the designation of the said rearrangement project zone as the Mine Name City F (hereinafter “instant public announcement”).

C. On December 10, 2018, the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal rendered an adjudication to expropriate the instant real estate and land (on January 24, 2019, the date of commencement of expropriation), and the appraisal price for the instant real estate was KRW 52,710,600, and on January 28, 2019, the registration of transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s name was completed on the ground of land expropriation on January 24, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant real estate, has continued to reside from the date of the public inspection announcement to the time of the adjudication for expropriation of the instant real estate. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff resettlement funds as compensation for a residential building pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act, and the amount exceeds 15,813,198 won (160,434,732 won, which the Plaintiff stated, appears to be a clerical error) equivalent to 30% of the amount of the instant real estate determined by the expropriation adjudication committee.

arrow