손해배상
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project on June 12, 2003 from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to 150 buildings on the ground of 405,782.40 square meters of land outside Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and six parcels pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); on April 208, the Plaintiff was authorized to implement a project on December 26, 2013; the authorization for the implementation of the project on January 27, 2015; and the head of Songpa-gu publicly notified the instant management and disposal plan pursuant to the provisions of Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act on January 29, 2015.
B. The Defendants are the owners of each of the corresponding column real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate contained in the instant project site (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”), and are the Plaintiff’s members.
C. According to the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, a union member shall leave the relevant house within the resettlement period determined and notified by the Plaintiff (Article 32(4)); and a union member shall be liable to compensate all damages incurred therefrom if the union member or tenant fails to leave the relevant house, thereby hindering the implementation of the project, such as removal of the existing house, and shall not raise an objection to the Plaintiff.
(Article 32, paragraph 5). (d)
On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff announced that the period from July 7, 2014 to August 8, 2014 should be set to move to commercial partners. The Defendants, even though they were commercial partners, did not withdraw from each of the instant real estate during the period of relocation.
On the other hand, on July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion against the Defendants on July 16, 2014, Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Da35410, respectively.