건물명도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. According to the records of recognition, the following facts are acknowledged.
A. The Plaintiff is a reconstruction maintenance project association that was established with the whole area of 48,323 square meters located in the Dong-dong 122-2, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City as its business area, and has completed the registration of incorporation on March 3, 2009 with authorization from the head of Gwangjin-gu, the competent administrative agency, and the Defendant is the lessee of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the reconstruction improvement project from the head of Gwangjin-gu, the competent authority (the date of public notice of authorization is August 1, 201), and obtained authorization of the management and disposal plan on May 8, 2014, and the said management and disposal plan was approved and publicly notified on May 15, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that “When approval of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of the public announcement of relocation.” According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the defendant, who is the lessee of the building within the rebuilding improvement zone, cannot use or benefit from the building within the rebuilding improvement zone from May 15, 2014, is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.
B. The Defendant asserts that the lease contract was extended with the lessor of the instant building, and that the claim for extradition of the instant building was filed.
Then, no one can use or benefit from a building located within the reconstruction rearrangement project zone after the notice of the management and disposal plan is given, and the grounds alleged by the defendant cannot be a legal ground for defense against the plaintiff's request for extradition of this case under the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, and cannot be accepted.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.