건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant shall attach the attached Form 2 to the plaintiff among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list, which are 154.06 square meters of underground floor and the attached Table 2.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including the virtual number) as to the plaintiff's cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff the part of the ship connecting each point of the building listed in the annexed sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 16, 15, and 12.2m2m2 among the buildings listed in the annexed sheet No. 1, 154.06m2 among the buildings listed in the annexed sheet No. 1 and the annexed sheet No. 2.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Since the gist of the assertion did not pay the Defendant a reasonable amount of business loss compensation, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).
The Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) provides for the main sentence of Article 49(6) and the principle of advance compensation.
In full view of the relevant provisions including Article 62 of the Urban Improvement Act and the Public Works Act, in order for an implementer of an urban environment improvement project to receive land or buildings within an improvement zone from a lessee to start construction works, the management and disposal plan’s approval is insufficient solely with the approval and public notice, and the procedure for payment of business compensation, etc. to be determined by consultation or adjudication procedure is prior to the commencement of construction (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28394, Nov. 24, 201). Meanwhile, where an implementer of an urban environment improvement project deposits compensation for losses as prescribed by the adjudication of expropriation by the competent Land Tribunal, the compensation for losses under Article 49(6) of the Land Compensation Act should be deemed to have been completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097, Aug. 22, 2013). In full view of the purport of each of the arguments in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s evidence No. 10 and No. 111 (Ga number).32, Mar. 23, 2018>