beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.29 2012가합92840

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The Defendants stated in [1] “Defendant” in the separate sheet refers to the No.D. purchase price of the same Table from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In order to implement a reconstruction project (hereinafter “the instant reconstruction project”) in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government G G G G 176,590 square meters (hereinafter “the instant rearrangement zone”), the Plaintiff is an individual owner of each real estate listed in the list of real estate (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) in the attached Form in the instant rearrangement zone, with the consent of establishment from 1,203 owners of land, etc. (85.12% of the consent rate) on May 10, 2012 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), with the approval of establishment from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 14, 2012, and the registration of establishment was completed on May 14, 2012. The Defendants are the individual owners of each real estate listed in the list of real estate in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Around July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice of the Plaintiff’s consent to the establishment of the association, and the right to demand sale, to the Defendants that they wish to join the Plaintiff’s association and participate in the reconstruction project of this case (hereinafter “the instant peremptory notice”). (2) Defendant D did not receive the instant peremptory notice, and the remainder Defendants received the instant peremptory notice to ask the Defendants as to whether they agree to establish the association on each date indicated in the “service date” column of the “service date slip” as below, but did not reply within two months from the date of receipt. (3) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 2, 2012, and “the Plaintiff” did not reply to the Defendants on November 2, 2012, Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.

(2) The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants’ right to sell each of the instant real property in accordance with Article 48 may be exercised, and the copy of the instant complaint shall be as follows: (a) the service date chart (hereinafter “the service date chart”).

‘e.g.'