건물인도
1. The defendant shall leave the plaintiff from the first floor of the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The plaintiff asserts that, as a reconstruction maintenance and improvement project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), the owner of real estate in the attached list in the above project area has completed the application for parcelling-out, the defendant is obligated to withdraw from the first floor of the real estate in the attached list pursuant to Article 49 (6)
In this regard, the defendant asserts that, according to the proviso of Article 49 (6) of the Urban Improvement Act, in the case of a right holder whose compensation for loss is not completed, the right to use and benefit is not restricted, and thus, in this case, the lessee has no obligation to leave.
Article 40(1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use of the ownership of, and other rights to, the land or buildings for the implementation of a rearrangement project within a rearrangement zone, except as otherwise provided for in this Act. Article 77(1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor provides that “any business loss incurred by the discontinuation or suspension of business shall be compensated in consideration of the operating profits and the cost of relocation of facilities, etc.” However, these provisions apply to cases of expropriation or use under Article 38 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor. However, in the case of a housing reconstruction project such as this case, there is no ground provision applicable mutatis mutandis to the provisions of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works Projects
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561 Decided July 24, 2014). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
Moreover, in this case, the owner C has completed the application for parcelling-out.