건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff was established for the purpose of housing redevelopment and rearrangement project, the project district of which is 171,537 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of housing redevelopment and rearrangement project, and obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association on January 6, 2010. 2) On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on the management and disposal plan on March 23, 2017 (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”). The authorization of the instant management and disposal plan was publicly announced as Q Q on March 27, 2017.
3) The Defendant, as a lessee of the instant store located within the project implementation district, operates the “R Job Placement Office” at the instant store, and occupies and uses it. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, 12, and 13, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. Article 49(6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 14113, Mar. 29, 2016; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “When the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date the transfer is publicly announced.” Thus, when the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use or benefit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, lessee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the same (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). In light of the provisions and legal principles of the Urban Improvement Act, this case was examined.