logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.10.27 2016구합55377
수용재결무효확인 청구의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

1. Details of authorization for project implementation and adjudication;

A. The Intervenor joining the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor Union”) obtained authorization on April 21, 2009 to promote B housing redevelopment rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) on the 89,853m2 in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu Seoul.

B. On April 4, 2013, the Intervenor Union approved the project implementation plan (hereinafter “instant project implementation plan”) from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant project implementation plan”) and announced it on April 11, 2013.

(Public Notice of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government).

Since then, the contents of the project implementation plan of this case were partially modified, and each authorization was obtained from the head of Seongbuk-gu Office on December 23, 2013 and December 8, 2014.

On June 26, 2015, the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Defendant, and the Defendant rendered adjudication of expropriation on August 14, 2015 with compensation for the obstacles to the instant land, building, etc. as KRW 329,630,00, obstacles, and KRW 43,190,140, and the date of commencement of expropriation as of August 14, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant acceptance ruling”). E.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on January 21, 2016, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered an objection to KRW 341,065,90 on the instant land, and KRW 43,881,450 on the compensation for the obstacles, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s project implementation plan must include the matters stipulated in Article 30 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter “the Act”) and each subparagraph of Article 41(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”). However, the instant project implementation plan is completely formulated a plan for the protection of educational environment of educational facilities (Article 30 subparag. 7-2 of the Act).

arrow