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. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an association established for a housing redevelopment improvement project with the size of 43,329 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 17, 2008, and obtained authorization for the establishment of a project on September 5, 2013, and obtained authorization for the implementation of a project on September 5, 2013. The Plaintiff was authorized for a management and disposal plan on November 13, 2014 pursuant to Article 49 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement
B. The Defendant occupies the real estate listed in the separate sheet located in the project implementation district (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3, five-7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. When a public notice of a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer is able to use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff
B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion argues to the effect that the instant management and disposition plan was established on the basis of a false proportional ratio, and thus should be revoked. However, there is no evidence to deem the instant management and disposition plan unlawful (the partners filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the management and disposition plan as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap54018, and the claims of partners were dismissed on July 24, 2015), and the Defendant’s argument is without merit
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.