logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.08.18 2014누6892
도시개발사업시행자지정신청거부처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s urban development project implementer on May 2, 201 against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. E. E.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E.S.”) proposed that the Defendant designate a single unit of 2458 E.S. Sinnam-si as an urban development zone. On May 15, 2009, the Defendant accepted the proposal as above, and designated a new unit of 2458 U.S. Sinnam-dong 244,235m2 (hereinafter “instant site”) as “S. E.S. Sinnam-dong 13m235m2 (hereinafter “instant site”) as an urban development zone (hereinafter “instant urban development zone”) without designating an implementer, and publicly notified as a Sinnam-si 209-61 of E.S. notification.

B. According to the above urban development project plan, the purpose of designation of the urban development zone is ① the balanced development of the existing city due to the planned development of a site prior to an industrial area, restoration of regional-centered functions, creation of greenmark, expansion of green space, revitalization of urban center areas, and creation of a pleasant residential environment. ② The implementation period of the urban development project is from the time of authorization to implement the project to the date of public announcement of construction completion. ③ Specific contents of the land utilization plan and infrastructure plan are the above area is to develop the above area at the rate of 34.9%, commercial land (multi-unit housing land), 31.8%, commercial land (general commercial land), 5.5%, and green space 27.8%, and to this end, the development zone in this case is designated as Class 1 district unit planning zone (district unit planning established to rationalize the use of land, to improve

C. On September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the rights relating to the instant urban development project are to be acquired by E.S., and then, around November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the limited company and the limited company next to the crowdfunding.

arrow