채무부존재확인
1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to indicate the attached document against the Defendant does not exist.
2...
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute with each other; or (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, 3, 8, and 9; and (c) Eul evidence No. 1-1.
The defendant is an urban environment rearrangement association which received authorization of July 11, 2006 and authorization of a project implementation plan on February 10, 201 from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, respectively, and the plaintiff is the owner of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building C Ground (hereinafter referred to as the "instant building") located within the improvement project district of the defendant, and is the defendant's member.
B. On December 8, 2011, the general meeting was convened to establish the Defendant’s management and disposition plan, and the above general meeting passed a resolution on the “case of processing the burden of expenses related to the lusence lawsuit, etc.” The proposal of the above agenda was anticipated to proceed with the lusence following the relocation and removal of the union members in the future. In such a case, the association’s articles of incorporation shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provision on the relocation and removal duty of the union members under Article 10 of the union’s articles of incorporation and shall, in principle, apply mutatis mutandis to the expenses incurred in the lawsuit to be borne by the parties at the time of payment
(2) The resolution of the general meeting of this case is referred to only as the "resolution of this case").
On December 31, 2012, the Defendant received an approval for the management and disposal plan from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, and the above approval was written on January 10, 2013 (the date of the notice is written on January 10, 2012, according to the evidence No. 1-4, the date of notice is written on the upper right side of the Official Gazette, but in light of the scheduled date of removal and the date of the approval for the management and disposal plan, “2012.” appears to be “2013.”
On August 16, 2013, the Plaintiff received confirmation from the Defendant that the delivery of the instant building was completed (see Evidence A No. 9), and submitted it to the Bank at that time, and received all the relocation allowances prescribed.
(e).