logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.12.06 2018가합497
토지반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner or equity right holder who has completed the registration of transfer of ownership or equity in the land stated in the purport of the claim as follows.

1) The window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, C Forest land 5747 square meters (hereinafter “C land”).

(2) Each registration of transfer (total 1768/20 shares) on July 30, 1993 60645/161720 shares, 1263/80 shares on February 9, 1998, 3032.5/80 shares on June 30, 1998, 80860 shares, 884/80 shares on January 14, 1999, 2) 618 square meters of F forest land in the window of Chang-si, Chang-si (hereinafter “F land”) on January 21, 1997.

B. On May 29, 1998, G prepared and ordered the following descriptions to the Plaintiff and H (Evidence A4).

“G shall return KRW 30,00,000 for civil engineering design cost for C and F land from the Plaintiff and H, and KRW 45,000 for environmental impact assessment costs, KRW 5,000 for I’s expense aid 5,00,000 for KRW 80,000 for the aggregate, and KRW 80,000 for the construction after the receipt on July 20, 1996, but the construction cannot be executed thereafter, including interest until the end of December 198.”

C. Of B tourist resorts, the Defendant consisting of Section 1 owners and the “B Section 2 Tourism Development Cooperatives” consisting of Section 2 owners of Section 2 (hereinafter “B Section 2 Cooperative”) was a development project with permission from each competent head of Si/Gun (current market is the original market).

C.F land is located in Section B of the B tourist destination.

On August 22, 1998, according to the B Tourist Site Development Plan, the second district cooperative designated the land substitution plan for 2339 square meters among the C land included in the area where the project to build the foundation for the second district was implemented.

(The ground for recognition) / [The fact that there is no dispute about the designation of the land substitution area in this case / [the ground for recognition] / The entry in Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 4, the fact inquiry into the original city of this court, the result of the fact inquiry into the original city of this court, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport:

G, which is delegated by J to the president of the Section 2 Partnership, shall be designated as a accommodation and commercial facility district to the Plaintiff.

arrow