소유권이전등기 등
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B received KRW 44,92,160 from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in Annex B Section 2.
1. Facts that he/she has no dispute;
A. The Plaintiff is a rearrangement project association established under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) for the purpose of implementing the housing reconstruction project for Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A (hereinafter “instant project”).
Defendant C is the owner of the real estate listed in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the instant project zone, and Defendant B is the owner of the real estate listed in attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the instant land.
B. On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendants within two months on whether they agree to the establishment of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 39 of the former Act and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”).
On June 21, 2016, the Defendants did not reply within two months from that time upon receipt of the above peremptory notice.
C. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Defendants on September 13, 2016, stating that they exercise a claim for sale under the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and the Aggregate Buildings Act, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendants on September 29, 2016.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found in the establishment of a sales contract, the Defendants’ replyed to the effect that they do not consent to the establishment of an association by failing to reply to the lapse of two months from the date of the Plaintiff’s highest notice (Article 48(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act). Accordingly, upon the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to demand sale, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, upon September 29, 2016, were served with a copy of the complaint on the instant land and buildings, and the sales contract, the market price of which is the sale
B. The fact that the market price as of the date of establishment of the sales contract of the building of this case, alleged by one party, is KRW 90,92,160.