beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs established a new harbor construction project plan pursuant to Article 8(1) of the New Harbor Construction Promotion Act and announced it on February 5, 2010, and the Defendant Busan Port Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) is an executor of the Busan Port New Port Development Project (hereinafter “instant Project”).
B. On February 23, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the provisional attachment registration with a claim amounting to KRW 186,80,000 on the same day pursuant to the provisional attachment order (201Kadan985) issued by the Changwon District Court on the same day with respect to the land of this case owned by Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff’s address is indicated as the Plaintiff’s number 203 Dong-dong 203,902.
C. Although Defendant Corporation consulted with owners, etc., including B, who are the instant landowners, but failed to reach an agreement to acquire land, etc., it filed an application for adjudication with the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Central Land Expropriation Committee”), which was subject to the procedure of public announcement, etc. of inspection of application documents pursuant to Article 31 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), and rendered a ruling of expropriation on December 19, 2013.
Afterwards, China served a written adjudication on the truth-finding, etc. registered as the owner B and the manager of the instant land. However, the written adjudication against the Plaintiff was returned for the reason that the director is unknown and served by public notice (15 days) from January 29, 2014 to February 12, 2014.
E. The reason why the ruling was not served on the Plaintiff was that the Defendant Port Authority entered the Plaintiff’s domicile in the provisional attachment registration rather than the address indicated on the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment registration, which was due to the mistake of 101 Dong 2008, Seo-gu, Busan, and China’s erroneous address.
F. After that, the Plaintiff failed to take measures to preserve the claim against the compensation that B would have received.