건물인도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some parts as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The second sentence of the first instance court;
B. (1) Paragraph (1) is as follows: (1) First, the above Note is divided into and examined as follows:
A) As to the assertion that the designation of the rearrangement zone in this case is null and void, Article 2 subparag. 3 (c) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007) and Article 2(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21098 of Oct. 29, 2008) “a building prescribed by City/Do Municipal Ordinance as prescribed by Presidential Decree, which is inevitable to be removed due to structural defects, etc. caused by deterioration of the building” means a building for which 20 years have passed after its completion and 20 years have passed since structural defects, etc., and thus it is reasonable to interpret that the removal of the building is inevitable due to the deterioration of the building and the occurrence of structural defects (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du16592, Jun. 18, 2012).
On the other hand, in cases where an administrative disposition was taken by applying the provisions of a certain Act to a certain legal relationship or fact-finding, the legal doctrine clearly stating that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to such legal relation or fact-finding, and there is no room for dispute over such interpretation.