건물명도(인도)
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall have the branch floor among the real property listed in the attached list 4;
B. Defendant C is a list 7.
1. The facts of the reasons for the claim are acknowledged according to the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
When the approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9729, May 27, 2009; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and lessee, of the previous land or building, shall be suspended and the project implementer may use and profit from the previous land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Accordingly, the Defendants whose use and profit-making have been suspended pursuant to the public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan shall have the duty to hand over each of the real estate recorded
2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion
A. Defendant B’s assertion that excessive relocation expenses are set so that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.
The Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Compensation Act") which applies mutatis mutandis to the expropriation of land, etc. for the implementation of urban rearrangement projects, etc.
According to the Act, in cases where a project operator paid or deposited the compensation not later than the commencement date of expropriation as determined by the adjudication by the competent Land Tribunal, the effect of the adjudication on expropriation takes place. As such, the project operator shall finally acquire the ownership of the land or goods subject to expropriation on the commencement date of expropriation, and the landowner, etc. shall deliver or transfer the relevant
(Article 40, 43, and 45). According to the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 36,245,000 (No. 4727 of this Court) with Defendant B as the principal deposit on October 20, 2017 according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Expropriation Committee’s adjudication.