logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2017.06.28 2017가합2026
수의계약당사자지위확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Korea’s disuse and sale of a river site was transferred to Jeollabuk-do because it disuses a river site other than a dam area among the lands that were managed as a river site in the B Dam, which was located in the territory of a State-owned land. 2) Jeollabuk-do has sold through a free contract the land where a relative is in accordance with Article 78 of the River Act from 2001 to the first half of 2014 in order to secure financial resources for compensation for flooded land in accordance with the B Dam Normalization Project, and the Management Regulations for the Disused River Sites in Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter “Management Regulations in this case”). The Defendant and the Y-gun manage the land transferred to Jeollabuk-do as above.

The contents of the above River Act and the instant management regulations are as shown in the attached Table.

B. 1) The Jeollabuk-do’s respective real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “each land of this case”) shall be the Republic of Korea’s respective real estate (hereinafter “each land of this case”), and the “instant land” by the sequence

Of the instant lands, for the purpose of concession on February 3, 1986 with respect to the land Nos. 6, 7, 9, 17, and 17, each of the instant lands was completed on the ground of gratuitous concession from January 22, 2000 and around the concession date. Meanwhile, the instant land No. 8 is State-owned land. 2) The Defendant recognized the relative under Article 7(1) of the instant Management Regulations as the Plaintiff on August 31, 2001, and decided the selling price of each of the instant lands around November 6, 2001, and requested the Plaintiff to purchase, and the Plaintiff did not comply with the said request for purchase.

Accordingly, the defendant requested the plaintiff to purchase each of the above lands again on or around June 10, 2003, and with respect to the land for which the sales contract was not made by July 30, 2003, Article 17 of the Management Rules of this case.

arrow