logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.09.14 2017구단17696
이주비
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,226,960 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 23, 2015 to September 14, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2007, the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office published the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement of the D urban renewal acceleration plan to read and publicly announce the D urban renewal acceleration plan.

The Defendant obtained approval for the establishment of the above rearrangement zone (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”) and implemented a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) in the above rearrangement zone.

On August 16, 2013, there was a public announcement of authorization to implement the project of this case, and on April 30, 2015, there was a public announcement of authorization to implement the project of this case.

B. On February 23, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of housing relocation expenses with the Defendant, if he leased and resided in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Undergroundho Lake (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by E in the instant rearrangement zone.

The Plaintiff made a move-in report on August 28, 2008 on the instant housing.

The plaintiff's wife G made a move-in report on June 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is, on October 22, 2007, the date of the public inspection and announcement of the rearrangement zone of this case, the Plaintiff moved out of the rearrangement zone of this case as a tenant who was a director of the housing of this case on March 30, 2007, and resided with the actual wife from the time, and thereafter, the Plaintiff moved out of the rearrangement zone by implementing the rearrangement project of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is seeking payment of approximately KRW 7,500,000 out of KRW 10,000,000, based on two households.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. Article 78(5) and (9) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor; Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act; Article 40(1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

arrow