beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.08.16 2011가합10278

소유권이전등기 등

Text

1. The Defendants are each corresponding money indicated in the “amount paid” table of the execution statement of the attached 3 purchase and sale contract from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established pursuant to the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”). On August 12, 2010, the owner of land, etc. within the project area of this case at the time of authorization for establishment by the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City head of the Gu’s first association, at 267 owners (28 landowners, 2 building owners, housing and 237 owners). The consent rate of 31/33 (94%) within the housing complex (93.94%) outside the housing complex; 176/234 (75.21%) for an area other than the housing complex; however, on November 3, 2010, the Defendants’ respective real estate owners, 268 (a landowner, 29, 239/37, 293) were not the owners of land, etc., and 3137.

B. In accordance with Article 48 of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 39 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”), the Plaintiff given written peremptory notice to the owners of land, etc. within the instant project implementation district without consent of the establishment of the association, to reply to whether to participate in the reconstruction project on four occasions on October 12, 201, in accordance with Article 48 of the same Act (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22493, Nov. 9, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22426, Dec. 10, 2010; Presidential Decree No.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff urged the Defendants, who were not the preliminary highest notice, to reply to whether to participate in the reconstruction project through the duplicate of the instant complaint. Defendant B, C, D, E, and F, February 16, 201, Defendant L, February 17, 201, Defendant I, and K, March 25, 2011, respectively, and Defendant J, March 28, 201, and March 28, 201.