beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.29 2012가합14067

소유권이전등기 등

Text

1. The Defendants fall under the “recognized Amount” column of the attached Table 3 detailed performance sheet from the Plaintiff, respectively.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established to implement a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) within the area of 65148 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul. The Defendants are the owners of each real estate located within the instant project area as shown in the attached Table 2.

B. An association establishment authorization and an authorization for modification are originally granted on May 29, 2003 with a business area of which the area is 48775 square meters per se;

7. The registration of the establishment was completed on August 30, 201, but the instant project zone expanded on August 19, 2010 was designated and publicly announced as a housing reconstruction improvement zone, and the owners of land, etc. in a new project zone [the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”)].

(B) With the consent of 75% or more of the owners of land, etc. under Article 2 subparagraph 9 (b) (hereinafter the same shall apply), the authorization for the establishment of the association was obtained on June 26, 2012 (hereinafter the “authorization for the establishment of the association of this case”);

6. 29. Registration of modification shall be completed.

C. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendants to the effect that “if the Defendants agree to the change of the establishment of the association within two months from the date of receipt of the written peremptory notice, and if it is deemed that they did not consent to the change of the establishment of the association, or that they did not consent to the change of the establishment within two months, they would exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act.” However, on December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff returned all of them. (2) Upon filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendants, the Plaintiff stated the purport that “the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act” shall be exercised, and the written peremptory notice as referred to in the above paragraph (1) shall be attached to the copy of the written peremptory notice, which shall be sent to the Defendants on January 3, 2013, and shall be stated on the corresponding date.