beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.01.16 2018가단514595

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff each building listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association which has been authorized by the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City North Korean government to establish the Seoul Northern District as a project implementation district pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff received authorization for the implementation of the project on March 31, 2017, and the authorization for the management and disposal plan on November 15, 2017, respectively. On November 16, 2017, the said authorization for the management and disposal plan was publicly notified.

C. The Defendant is the owner of each building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the application for parcelling-out within the Plaintiff’s period for parcelling-out, and occupies the said building.

The articles of association of the plaintiff is defined as a person who fails to apply for parcelling-out in Article 44 or who is excluded from objects of parcelling-out according to the authorized management plan.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant building, is obligated to deliver the said building to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and make profits from the said building.

B. As to this, the Defendant expressed his intention to withdraw from the association orally from around 2017, and as of July 10, 2018.

8. 1.1. Since the defendant clearly expressed his intention of withdrawal by delivery of each content-certified mail, the defendant is in the position of a cash liquidation agent, it is impossible to seek the name of the building of this case without undergoing cash settlement procedures against the defendant, or 2. The plaintiff applied for parcelling-out, but the plaintiff obtained the status of cash liquidation by failing to conclude the sales contract within the period of conclusion of the sales contract pursuant to the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff association, but the plaintiff did not proceed with the procedure of