logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.10.23 2012가합8945
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 9, 200, the head of Si/Gun/Gu issued a written confirmation of land use plan stating the land use plan as quasi-preserveded land under the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 6245, Jan. 28, 2000) and the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 6382, Jan. 26, 2000).

B. On April 14, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase each of the instant land from D (hereinafter “the instant purchase”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the instant sales contract as the Daegu District Court Branching Port of the Daegu District Court No. 35439, May 19, 2004.

C. On May 24, 2005, the Plaintiff issued a written confirmation of the land use planning for each of the instant lands from the head of the North Korea-Si/Gun/Gu. The said documents stated that each of the instant land constitutes a management area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), and that it does not constitute a preserved mountainous district under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act.

However, the land use plan confirmation issued by the plaintiff by the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City south-gu on June 4, 2005 stated that part of the land of this case and the land of this case constitute an agricultural and forest area and a preserved mountainous district (production) under the National Land Planning Act, unlike the previous confirmation document.

E. On June 27, 2005, the Plaintiff sent a written objection to the Defendant that requests the owner to take measures so that no damage may be inflicted if the specific use area indicated in the certificate of land use planning is altered without any notification or the aforesaid special use area was issued erroneously due to administrative error.

F. At the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale of this case, part of the instant one and two lands are located within an agricultural and forest area under the National Land Planning Act and a preserved mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act.

arrow