건물명도(인도)
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, listed in [Attachment 2 List 5], and Defendant C, listed in Annex 2 List 7.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. During Ansan-si, the Plaintiff is an association which has obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project on February 21, 2012 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment project on the scale of 116,66.10 square meters in Ansan-si, which was approved on January 15, 2016 for a housing redevelopment project on the Housing Redevelopment Project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”), and was notified of the management and disposal plan on February 27, 2017.
B. The Defendants possess each of the real estate stated in the text within the instant redevelopment project zone.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The main text of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act provides, “When the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86.” Thus, when the public announcement of a management and disposition plan is made, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants whose use or profit has been suspended pursuant to the public announcement of the authorization of the management
B. The Defendants’ assertion and determination 1) asserted that Defendants B, C, and GA cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the building since the Plaintiff did not have paid the amount of business loss compensation to the Defendants.
B. We examine the judgment.