건물인도
1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
3...
1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking account of the whole purport of pleadings in each entry in Gap's 1 to 3, and Eul's 3 to 6.
The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), which is the implementer of the housing redevelopment project that has the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Private
The simplified progress of the above rearrangement project shall be as follows:
Public notice of the designation of an improvement zone: A project implementation plan on September 12, 2007 - A project implementation plan on December 28, 2012, public notice of the project implementation plan on January 9, 2013: Approval on September 12, 2014; public notice of the project implementation plan on September 17, 2014; public notice of the management and disposition plan on September 17, 2014; public notice of the management and disposition plan on March 18, 2015; public notice of March 25, 2015 - Authorization on February 26, 2016; public notice of the project implementation plan on March 2, 2016;
B. Defendant B is the owner of a building listed in the attached list in the above improvement zone (hereinafter “instant building”), and its mother, together with Defendant C, occupy the building by not later than the day of closing argument in the instant case.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the above alteration plan was approved, and thus the use and profit-making of the Defendants on the instant building in the rearrangement zone was suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, and the Plaintiff, who is the implementer of the said rearrangement project, can use and profit-making therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). The Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.
B. The Defendants asserted that the management and disposal plan and the revised management and disposal plan are invalid for the following reasons. Thus, the Defendants’ use and profit-making with respect to the instant building are not suspended.