건물명도
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. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) in order to implement the housing redevelopment and consolidation project association (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”).
B. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained approval of the management and disposal plan for the instant rearrangement project from the Asan City, and the Asan City publicly notified the management and disposal plan E of the Asan City on the same day.
C. Defendant B, as a lessee of the real estate indicated in No. 1, to be delivered to each Defendant within the rearrangement zone of the instant rearrangement project, occupied and used the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate No. 1”).
On the other hand, F is the owner of the real estate indicated in GJ 209.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the No. 2 of the real estate indicated in the No. 2 of the real estate to be delivered to each Defendant on the land above the above land (hereinafter “2 real estate of this case”), and F did not file an application for parcelling-out with the Plaintiff within the period of application for parcelling-out, and the Defendant C is the spouse of F and is residing in the 2 real estate of this case
[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, Gap's evidence 3-1, 6, Gap's evidence 4, 5, Eul's evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the main sentence of Article 81(1), Article 78(3), and Article 86 of the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims, when the approval of the management and disposal plan under the above Act is publicly notified, the owners, lessees, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings. According to the above recognition, the defendant B, the lessee of the first real estate in the rearrangement zone of this case, and the F, the owner of the second real estate in this case, lose the right to use or benefit from each of the above real estate, and the plaintiff as the project implementer.