beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s each of the above amounts and each of the above amounts stated in attached Table 1’s Schedule 2 to the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) An outline of the rearrangement project - Business name: F Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant - Business site: Defendant - Business site: 164,280 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”): Authorization for the implementation of the project on November 16, 2005: Public Notice of authorization for the implementation of the project on August 16, 2007 - Public Notice of the authorization for the implementation of the project on August 26, 2007: H Public Notice of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City on August 22, 2007; I- Adjudication of expropriation on July 9, 2014: Busan Regional Land Expropriation Committee on October 13, 2014 - Date of expropriation: December 8, 2014.
The plaintiffs were the owners of residential buildings located in the rearrangement zone of this case as shown below, and were residing in the above building with their families until the date of the above expropriation ruling. They did not apply for the application for parcelling-out under the project of this case.
Serial 11,904, 509 EO 227,39, 640.22 / [Grounds for recognition] 11,904, 50 / 50 / 51.24 EO 25 EO 27,339, 640.22 / 5,000 / 138,250 / 338,480 L 264, 480 L 264, 480 264.62 B L 264, 480 / [2] 13,063, 480 /
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had resided as the owner of a residential building in the rearrangement zone of this case until the commencement date of expropriation, and that the implementation of the project of this case has moved out of the rearrangement zone of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the housing relocation expenses, movable property relocation expenses, resettlement funds and damages for delay as shown in attached Table 1 attached hereto 1.
(b) Attached Form 2 of the relevant statutes;
C. On June 25, 2015, the Defendant expressed his/her intention not to dispute the part of the Plaintiffs’ claim regarding the movable property transfer cost and the settlement money. This is the Defendant’s movable property transfer cost and the settlement money.