소유권이전등기
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B received KRW 3,942,430 from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in Section 1 of the attached Table.
1. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants other than Defendant D
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(b) The applicable provisions of law 1) other than Defendant E and J: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3)(a)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Defendant E and J: Article 208(3)3 (a) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment by service by public notice);
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D (referred to as “Defendant” only in this paragraph)
A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”).
Pursuant to the foregoing, the 52,184 square meters in Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) shall be deemed as the “instant improvement zone.”
(2) The reconstruction project of this case (hereinafter “the reconstruction project of this case”)
(2) For the purpose of implementing an association establishment authorization on June 5, 2012, the Housing Reconstruction Project Association is a housing reconstruction project partnership which completed the establishment registration on June 26, 2012, and the general meeting of cooperatives held on December 2, 2017, approved the establishment authorization on August 2, 2018 after obtaining a resolution on the “agreement for establishment change” and “project plan consent” from the owners of land, etc., and obtained an establishment authorization on August 2, 2018. 2) The Defendant is the owner of 1/3 shares (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the real estate in the attached Table 2 located in the instant rearrangement zone.
3) Around August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendant regarding whether to participate in the instant reconstruction project within two months, and each written peremptory notice reached the Defendant around that time. However, the Defendant did not reply to the said written peremptory notice within the said period. (iv) The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to exercise the right to demand sale of the instant real estate by serving a copy of the instant written peremptory notice on the Defendant, and the duplicate of the instant written peremptory notice was served on the Defendant on January 7, 2019.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, A 1 to 3, 7 to .