건물명도
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B marks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Form 2 among the 1st floor of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list.
1. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D. The Defendants leased and occupy each part of the attached Tables 2 and 4 among each building listed in the attached Tables 1 and 3 (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”).
The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the management and disposition plan on December 8, 2014 concerning the housing redevelopment improvement project implemented by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant improvement project”), and publicly notified on March 12, 2015.
Each building of this case is located within the project implementation district.
The plaintiff filed an application for adjudication because consultation with landowners and lessees in the project implementation district has not been made.
On January 29, 2016, the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City rendered a ruling of expropriation on March 18, 2016 at the commencement date of expropriation.
(hereinafter “instant acceptance ruling”). The Defendants asserted their business losses in the above acceptance ruling procedure, and in the case of Defendant B, KRW 37,054,00 of business compensation and KRW 4,260,000 of transfer compensation were recognized.
Accordingly, on March 16, 2016, the date of commencement of expropriation stipulated in the above expropriation ruling, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 37,054,000 for Defendant B, and KRW 4,260,000 for Defendant C respectively.
[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. When a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the cause of the claim is publicly notified, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. for the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635