logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.23 2016구합68657
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. On July 14, 2010, the Defendant is the executor of the D Bogeumjari Housing Project (hereinafter “instant Project”) publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 17, 2010, as C public notice of the approval of the housing site development plan and the conversion of the Bogeumjari Housing Zone.

B. The Plaintiff, on March 5, 2012, entered into a compensation agreement with the Defendant on the instant housing, as the owner of the soil brick studs and 7.97 square meters of a single-story house (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the ground of No. 1 of E, Nam-si, South-do, which is incorporated into the instant business zone.

C. On July 28, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the examination of the relocation measures of the instant project that the Plaintiff was disqualified.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). As a result of the review of the relocation measures of the D public housing zone, guidance ( disqualified, evidence A No. 2), the thickness of the relocation measures of the D public housing zone does not meet the criteria for persons eligible for relocation measures, and is determined as disqualified, and the following is announced:

If there is an objection as a result of the review of the relocation measures, it is time to submit an objection, explanatory materials, etc. in writing by no later than 6 p.m. on September 2, 2016.

The cancellation lawsuit may be filed against the results of the examination within 90 days from the date the disposition, etc. is known pursuant to Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

- A person subject to relocation measures - A person who has owned a legitimate house in the project district and has resided continuously in the project district (or the date of adjudication of expropriation) before the date of public inspection and publication of the residents (one year prior to the date of the conclusion of the compensation contract (one year prior to the date of the adjudication of expropriation) and has moved to the country after receiving compensation for the house due to the implementation of the project (excluding the owner of an unauthorized building, corporation or organization after January 25, 1

D. On October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection, and the Defendant did not meet the requirements for residence as a result of the review of the Plaintiff’s objection.

arrow