logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.10 2016구합75944
토지수용에 대한 보상금 증액 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2008, the Defendant was authorized to establish an association by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Seodaemun-gu”) on September 1, 2008 for the purpose of housing redevelopment improvement project on the land size of 59,694 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Plaintiff is the owner of the land and buildings in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On October 16, 2009, the defendant issued a public notice of approval of the project implementation plan for the project of this case (the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice E), and notified the owners of land, etc. including the plaintiff to apply for parcelling-out, and the plaintiff applied for parcelling-out within the period of such application

C. Since then, the Defendant established a management and disposal plan based on the current status of application for parcelling-out, and on December 8, 2010, the authorization and public notice was made (F of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice).

Article 44 (Application for Parcelling-Out, etc.) (4) A cooperative shall liquidate in cash buildings and other rights within 150 days from the date it falls under any of the following subparagraphs if its members:

The amount shall be calculated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the values appraised by at least two appraisers recommended by the head of the Gu.

1. An applicant for parcelling-out;

2. Persons who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out;

3. A person excluded from objects of parcelling-out according to the authorized management and disposal plan.

The Plaintiff did not conclude a sales contract with the Defendant within the period of conclusion of the sales contract (from September 13, 2012 to September 17, 2012), as notified by the Defendant, the Plaintiff became a cash clearing agent pursuant to Article 44(5) and (4) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, as follows.

E. The plaintiff and the defendant agree on the compensation of the real estate of this case.

arrow