(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.10.07 2015누7525 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.10.07 2015누7525

사업시행변경계획무효확인 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 2, 2003, the Defendant was a housing reconstruction project partnership that obtained authorization for the establishment of the housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “the project in this case”) from the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City on December 2, 2003, and the Plaintiff was a member of the Defendant who owned 204, the C apartment operation.

B. On June 29, 2006, the defendant obtained the approval of the housing reconstruction project from the head of Suwon-si, and received the application for parcelling-out in cash from the members who did not apply for parcelling-out against the members from February 1, 2007 to March 31, 2007 (hereinafter “instant application period for parcelling-out”). The plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out to the defendant during the period of application for parcelling-out.

C. On December 3, 2007, the Defendant obtained the authorization of the management and disposal plan from the head of Suwon-gu (hereinafter “the first management and disposal plan”), but the effectiveness of the Si Corporation, on December 24, 2008, cancelled the contract with the Defendant on the ground of the poor progress of the project, etc., and applied for authorization for the cancellation of the first management and disposal plan on March 27, 2012, and obtained authorization for the cancellation of the first management and disposal plan from the head of Suwon-Gu on April 23, 2012.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to pay cash settlement money, and the Daegu High Court (201Na5036, etc.) which was the appellate court following the first instance trial did not apply for parcelling-out on April 5, 2012, which recognized that a cash settlement relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was established on the date following the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out and that the plaintiff lost its membership at the same time when the plaintiff lost its membership, the defendant paid KRW 89,545,00 to the plaintiff at the same time upon completion of the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as to C Apartment 204.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.01.22 2015가합1486

-대구지방법원 2015.12.15 2015구합22334

-대구지방법원 2016.01.22 2015가합1660

-대구지방법원 2015.12.15 2015구합22990

-서울고등법원 2014.02.06 2013누45388