건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that has obtained authorization for establishment of partnership from the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City North Korea, and is established 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 the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) who completed the application for parcelling-out within the Plaintiff’s period for parcelling-out, and occupies the instant building.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8, purport of whole pleading
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, in accordance with the Plaintiff’s articles of association, sought the status of a settlement agent by a method that does not conclude a contract for sale in lots within the period of conclusion of the contract for sale in lots, but obstructed the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct the contract for sale in lots without good cause contrary to the good faith principle, and thus, the Defendant is entitled to acquire the status of a person subject to settlement in cash. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before paying compensation for losses due to re-appraisal pursuant to Article 65(1) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 62 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects. As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff received the approval of management and disposal
or the progress of the project is the defendant.