건물인도
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B all the real estate listed in the Schedule No. 5:
B. Defendant C shall be listed in the attached Table 6.
1. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 1 to No. 6 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the cause of the claim, the changed cause of the claim, and the compensation and additional dues due to the expropriation ruling, are recognized. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate in question to the plaintiff.
2. Defendant B and D’s assertion that, in addition to the compensation, etc. prescribed in the adjudication on expropriation, it cannot be deemed that there was no obligation to deliver the settlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and the compensation for losses under the proviso to Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, until the payment of the compensation for losses is made. However, if the executor of the housing redevelopment improvement project deposited the compensation for losses as prescribed by the adjudication on expropriation by the competent Land Tribunal, the compensation for losses under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions shall be deemed to have been completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097, Aug. 22, 2013). The project executor’s assertion is deemed to have completed the compensation for losses under the Public Works Act under the said provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40643, Feb. 15, 2017). Therefore, the said Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.