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. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as a whole, the Plaintiff is an association that implements a housing redevelopment improvement project in Zone A in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); the management and disposal plan regarding the instant rearrangement project was authorized and publicly announced on December 2015; the Defendant occupied the said plan as the owner of real estate listed in the attached list located in the instant rearrangement project zone; and the Plaintiff deposited the compensation determined by the Seoul Metropolitan City local Land Expropriation Committee’s decision on expropriation of the said real estate owned by the Defendant on June 2016.
B. Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) provides that “When approval or announcement of a management and disposal plan has been made, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or structure, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public announcement of relocation under Article 54: Provided, That the same shall not apply to a right holder whose consent has been obtained from a project implementer or whose compensation has not been completed under Article 40 and the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor.” Accordingly, due to the authorization and public announcement of a management and disposal plan,
In this regard, the defendant argues that the amount of compensation due to the expropriation ruling is less than the market price so that it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, if there is a dispute as to the amount of compensation, it is against the expropriation ruling setting the amount of compensation.