beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
Basic Facts
This Court's reasoning is as follows: (a) other than deletion of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance 6 through 9, 6) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance 6 through 6), Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.
The main point of the plaintiff's claim is that the defendant is obliged to pay the liquidation amount of 72,460,660 won according to the imposition of the first liquidation amount, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the interest rate in arrears resolved through the meeting from October 25, 201 to the date of full payment after the date of public announcement of the disposition of replotting.
Judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that there is a claim for liquidation amount of KRW 72,460,660 against the Defendant based on the disposition of imposition of liquidation money of the instant case. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding the entire arguments in the evidence presented earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff revoked ex officio the disposition of imposition of the first liquidation money of the instant case and issued a disposition of imposition of the second liquidation money of the instant case on October 22, 2012. ① The Plaintiff is subject to the land substitution plan (revision) on October 4, 2011, but the Plaintiff did not submit evidence verifying the excess or excess of each land substitution or the calculation details of liquidation money, and the Incheon Metropolitan City did not also contain specific details in the public announcement. Meanwhile, the land substitution plan merely serves as the ground for the aforementioned designation of the land substitution plan or the disposition of land substitution, which itself does not directly change the legal status of the land owner, or does not entail any unique legal effect other than the designation of the land substitution plan or the disposition of land substitution (see, e.g., 2014.