건물인도
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. 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 Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C in
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. The Defendant, as the owner of the building listed in the attached list in the above improvement zone (hereinafter “instant building”), occupies it until the date of closing argument in the instant case.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant’s use and profit-making of the instant building in the rearrangement zone is suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act by publicly notifying the approval of the above alteration plan for the management and disposal of the building in question, 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 Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any other special circumstances.
B. The defendant's assertion that the management and disposal plan and the amendment plan of the management and disposal plan are invalid for the following reasons, and the defendant's use and profit-making with respect to the building of this case is not suspended.
In other words, the above management and disposal plan is the Urban Improvement Act.