beta
(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2019.01.23 2018가단5940

건물인도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver the building as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established with the approval from the head of the Busan Metropolitan Government on April 25, 2005 for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) in an area of 72,313.6 square meters in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City.

B. The Defendant, as the owner of the attached building located within the instant improvement project zone (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”), occupies the instant building as the members who completed the application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out executed by the Plaintiff.

C. On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of the Busan Metropolitan City Council of the State from the head of the Gu for the management and disposition plan for the instant improvement project (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”). On November 22, 2017, the said management and disposition plan was publicly announced.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the main sentence of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced, the owners, persons with superficies, persons having right to lease, lease right, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of public announcement of transfer under Article 86 of the same Act, and the project implementer shall be able to use or profit from the previous land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010).

3. The defendant's assertion is invalid since the management and disposal plan of this case was established based on the evaluation of illegal assets.