부동산인도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate listed in the attached real estate list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is an association that has obtained authorization to establish an association from the Gyeyang market on February 21, 2012 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).
On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the instant redevelopment project from the Gyeyang market, and on February 27, 2017, the management and disposal plan was publicly announced on the same day.
The defendant occupies real estate in the attached list in the above improvement zone.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Gap 5-9's each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “When the authorization of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date the previous public announcement is made pursuant to Article 54.” Thus, when the public announcement of the approval of the management and disposal plan is made, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall be suspended, and the project implementer shall be allowed to use or benefit from the former land or structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore,
B. The Defendant’s management and disposition plan was invalidated and revoked.
The defendant asserts that the defendant's children own the real estate listed in the attached list, so that they have the right to possess it.
However, the disposition plan of the plaintiff is invalid.