건물명도(인도)
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.
1. Determination of the Claimant
A. (i) The Plaintiff was established for the purpose of implementing the housing reconstruction rearrangement project for the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and obtained authorization for the establishment of a reconstruction association from the Namyang-si, on March 4, 2009, and completed the registration of incorporation on March 2, 2009.
The Plaintiff, with respect to Dollyang rearrangement project, obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on September 17, 2010 from the Namyang City Mayor, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on February 16, 2017, respectively, and publicly notified the authorization for the implementation of the project on September 30, 2010, and the authorization for the implementation of the project on February 16, 2017, respectively.
Article 22(1) of the Management and Disposal Plan Act (amended by Act No. 1183, Apr. 19, 2012); and Article 22(1) of the Management and Disposal Plan Act (amended by Act No. 11835, Sep. 21, 2017); and Article 22(1) of the Management and Disposal Plan Act (amended by Act No. 1310, Apr
Applicant The defendant is the owner of A apartment child 301 located in D in Nam-si, Namyang-si, Seoul Metropolitan City within the rearrangement project zone, and is the member applying for parcelling-out on March 19, 2017 during the period for application for parcelling-out designated by the plaintiff.
[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7
B. A public notice of the change of the management and disposal plan was given, and the defendant cannot use or benefit from the real estate owned by him/her, and the plaintiff was able to use or benefit from it.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver real estate owned by the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit from the real estate of this case.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s invalidity of the management and disposal plan is that the Plaintiff failed to re-establish the management and disposal plan as of the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out and to obtain authorization, and even if the project cost is not imposed and collected from the cash clearing businessman, the Defendant imposed the project cost on the cash clearing businessman in the articles of incorporation, not undergoing the long-term procedures for concluding a contract for parcelling-out after applying for parcelling-out, and the resolution of the general meeting seeking confirmation of invalidity