logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.28 2014누72165
변상금부과처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Based on Article 16 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11243, Jan. 26, 2012) on November 8, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the housing construction project plan for the 64-31 and 272 plot of land from the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. Based on Article 86 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the head of Dongjak-gu announced on October 13, 201, the Plaintiff and the 2nd regional housing association was designated and announced as the implementer of the urban planning facility project (park) project (park), and the 134th regional housing association on the parcel of 154 lots, including the State-owned land of 98 lots, including the 64-112 forest and field land, in Dongjak-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant State-owned land”) under Article 86 of the Dongjak-gu National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

C. On March 15, 2012, the head of Dongjak-gu announced on March 15, 2012, pursuant to Articles 86, 88, and 91 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Plaintiff and the upper Do 134 regional housing association were designated as the implementer of urban planning facility projects and announced the authorization of the implementation plan.

[This head of Dongjak-gu announced on June 28, 2012, the head of Dongjak-gu announced on October 4, 2012, Article 2012-12-128 of the Dongjak-gu notified on April 18, 2013, Article 2013-41 of the Dongjak-gu notified on April 18, 2013, Article 2013-105 of the Dongjak-gu notified on September 5, 2013, and Article 2014-36 of the Dongjak-gu notified on March 27, 2014.]

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Godo Landscaping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Landscaping”) for construction work with respect to the “Seoul Do Landscaping and ecological arable Contract” during the construction period from June 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013. The Godo Landscaping planted trees, etc. inside the instant State-owned land, and installed landscaping facilities, such as the multi-purpose plaza, physical training hall, forest resting zone, etc., and on the other hand, the construction work was carried out after September 4, 2013 after the original contract period expires.

E. The Defendant is the instant case as of September 20, 2012 and December 14, 2012.

arrow