건물명도(인도)
The Plaintiff, the Defendant B, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and the Defendant.
In order to implement a housing redevelopment project in Seongbuk-gu Seoul NJ, Seoul, the Plaintiff is a cooperative established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), and the management and disposal plan regarding the above rearrangement project was publicly announced on August 30, 2018 and authorized on September 6, 2018. The Defendants are holding or residing each building listed in the separate sheet, and the facts that the Defendants own or reside in each building listed in the separate sheet are recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 5 (including the separate numbers) between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, D, F, H, and L, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the above real estate to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit from each building under the above management and disposal plan’
Defendant B and F are dissatisfied with the procedure of the adjudication of expropriation because they did not properly compensate for their owned buildings, so they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request. However, in a case where there is an objection against the adjudication of expropriation of real estate, it can only be contested through a separate procedure of objection, such as an administrative litigation (main sentence of Article 85(1) of the Public Works Act). Thus, an objection against the adjudication of expropriation is not possible, and an objection against the adjudication of expropriation is not to suspend the progress of the project and the expropriation or use of land (Article 88 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects). Thus, the aforementioned
Defendant B’s defense to the effect that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the Plaintiff receives the compensation for losses, since the compensation for losses, such as the building owned by the Defendant and the relocation expenses, etc., was not completed. However, according to the written evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the fact that the ruling of expropriation on the building and its obstacles listed in the separate sheet No. 1 owned by the Defendant B on July 26, 201