건물명도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association whose project area covers 65,553m2,00 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was publicly notified on June 9, 2016.
B. The Defendant leased on September 20, 2014, the lease deposit amount of KRW 45,00,000 from D, the real estate indicated in the attached list in the said project implementation district (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the present day.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including various numbers if there are several numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), when a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the use and profit-making of right holders, such as the owner and lessee of the previous land or structure, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the same. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Under Article 44(1) and (2) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions at Time of Simultaneous Performance, the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit and the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate to the lessee are based on the same factual and legal relationship as the execution of the housing reconstruction project and the termination of the lease agreement accordingly, and thus, the Defendant’s defense is well-grounded.
As to this, the Plaintiff resisted that the Defendant extinguished the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit against the Defendant based on the Plaintiff’s refund of all the lease deposit from D, the owner of the instant real estate. Accordingly, according to the entries in the evidence No. 5, Oct. 15, 2016, the Defendant transferred the amount of KRW 45,000,000 from D to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and the sum of KRW 45,00,000,000,000, on October 1, 2016.