건물인도
1. The Defendants are indicated in the attached Form 4 Map No. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 2 among the 4 real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1 List to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
(a) The head of Mapo-gu Office approves the plaintiff's management and disposal plan established for the urban environment rearrangement project on July 7, 2015;
7. 9. The notice was made.
B. The Defendants are occupying the real estate stated in paragraph (1) of this case’s order within the rearrangement zone where the Plaintiff is running the business (hereinafter “instant store”).
C. On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff received a ruling of expropriation from the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City as of April 15, 2016 on the commencement date of expropriation, and deposited KRW 3,1860,000,000,000 to Defendant B as the amount of compensation determined by the ruling of expropriation on April 11, 2016.
[Evidence Evidence: Evidence without dispute; Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-4, 5, 6, 7; the purport of the whole pleadings];
2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.
() As a project implementer under Article 48-2 (1) of the Act, an existing building in the project site shall be removed in accordance with the management and disposal plan authorized by the project implementer, and the defendants are unable to use or profit from the previous building pursuant to Article 49(6), and the project implementer is obligated to deliver the pertinent building to the plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or benefit from the building, unless there are special circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010). As to this, the Defendants asserted to the purport that, from October 30, 2003 to October 30, 2003, the mother, a commercial building operated by Defendant B, should receive compensation for relocation expenses and directors.
The instant store, the use of which in the building ledger is a neighborhood living facility (No. 9) is difficult to view as a residential building, and Defendant B’s store is a residential building.