beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.23 2016가단252502

부동산인도 청구의 소

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is indicated in the attached list.

subsection (1) of this section,

B. Defendant C is written in the attached list.

(b).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association that was established with the area of the project of the project of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Group 73,606 square meters, which was subject to the approval of the management and disposal plan under Article 49 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and was publicly notified on the same day.

B. Defendant B, D, E, F, and G are the owners of the pertinent building located in the said project implementation district, and Defendant C are the owners of the pertinent building listed in the attached sheet in the attached sheet.

A lessee of a port building may possess each relevant part specified in the order.

C. The Plaintiff deposited each amount of compensation for expropriation up to February 10, 2017 by designating Defendant B, D, E, F, and G as the principal deposit in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling on September 30, 2016 and December 23, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, when a notice of approval of a management and disposal plan is given in an urban rearrangement project, the owners of the previous land or buildings, right holders, such as lessees, etc. shall not use or benefit from the land or buildings, and the project implementer shall use or benefit from the land or buildings. According to the above facts, the Defendants are obliged to deliver each

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.