건물인도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments to the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby admitting this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. First, the Defendant brought the instant lawsuit against the Defendant without a right to seek the delivery of the instant real estate, and tried to deliver the building immediately in the process of the lawsuit by seeking the acceptance ruling by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, while allowing the Defendant to be unable to undergo the adequate appraisal in the appeal procedure against the expropriation ruling. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant lawsuit constitutes an abuse of the right of lawsuit or against the good faith principle.
In full view of the records and arguments in this case, it is recognized that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking to transfer the instant real estate against the Defendant on February 6, 2015, which was before the Plaintiff deposited the payment of compensation pursuant to the above expropriation ruling on April 24, 2015 and the aforementioned expropriation ruling on June 2, 2015.
However, if a claim for future performance needs to be filed in advance, the benefit of lawsuit is recognized, and considering the fact that the defendant clearly expresses his intent to refuse the voluntary performance of the obligation to deliver the real estate of this case even until the date of closing argument of this case, it is difficult to view that the above circumstance alone constitutes an abuse of the Plaintiff’s right of lawsuit or a violation of the good faith principle.
Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.
B. The Defendant is unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim, since it was not paid with the resettlement funds, the relocation expenses, and the transfer expenses of movable property.