beta
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2020.05.20 2019가단66061

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, listed in [Attachment List No. 3, and Defendant C, listed in [Attachment List No. 5].

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association with the approval of establishment from the head of the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on May 22, 2015 for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On October 31, 2017, the head of Seogu Metropolitan City issued a disposition to authorize the project implementation of the instant project, and announced it on November 10, 2017. On December 10, 2018, the head of Seogu Metropolitan City issued a disposition to approve the management and disposal plan of the instant project and publicly notified it.

C. Defendant B is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 located in the instant project zone, and Defendant C is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 5 of the separate sheet, and each of the above real estate is occupied

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that "any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building shall not use the previous land or building or benefit therefrom until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86, when a public announcement of approval of the management and disposal plan is made under

Therefore, if the administrative disposition is publicly notified, use or profit-making of the previous owner of the subject matter is suspended, so the project implementer can use or profit from the subject matter without any separate procedure of expropriation or use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da289712, May 15, 2018).

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, Defendant B, barring any special circumstance, was unable to use and benefit from the real estate listed in Annex B(3) and the real estate listed in Annex C(5).

in this respect.