logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.05.31 2016구합50615
사업시행자변경신청반려처분취소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 21, 2005, the Defendant is called “Defendant” and “Defendant”. On February 21, 2005, the Defendant recruited a private investment project to build multiple sports and leisure facilities, such as golf clubs and sports facilities, on a 59-day area of 4,140,000 square meters in Jin-si, Kimhae-si.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant basic project”). (b)

The treatment Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Treatment Construction”) and Daedo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Daedo Construction”) changed the trade name on April 8, 2010 to Daedo Construction Co., Ltd.:

On May 26, 2005, the Military Personnel Mutual Aid Association organized a consortium to participate in the instant basic project (hereinafter “instant consortium”) and submitted a proposal to the Defendant for the participation in the basic project.

C. On June 21, 2005, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff established by the instant consortium to the effect that it became private investors in the instant basic project.

On June 29, 2005, the defendant entered into a concession agreement between the Military Mutual Aid Association, Treatment Construction, Largeer Construction and Kim Sea Complex Sports and Leisure Facilities development project.

The instant basic project consists of an urban development project that develops a housing complex (hereinafter “instant project”) and an urban planning facility project that installs golf courses, playgrounds, etc. (hereinafter “sports facility project”). According to the concession agreement, the Plaintiff was planned to be designated as the project implementer of the instant project and the entire sports facility project.

E. However, on January 8, 2009, Gyeongnam-do designated the Defendant, not the Plaintiff, as the implementer of the instant project.

On March 14, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on March 14, 2011, “the area released from a development restriction zone is a public development project for public purposes; (b) the project executor is limited to the State, local governments, construction, etc.; and (c) the private sector’s investment ratio

arrow