건물명도(인도)
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) the real estate listed in [Attachment] Section 1;
B. Defendant C shall set out in attached list 2.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The following facts are deemed to have been led to the confession by the same Defendants pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and Defendant D. The Plaintiff and Defendant B may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 2-4 and the entire purport of the pleadings.
1) The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project area covers 103,621.76m2 in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the E-Japan, and a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association with the approval of establishment on April 17, 2008. 2) Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located in the above project area. The Defendants are owners of the above real estate (Defendant B is the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant C is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and Defendant D is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3). The Defendants are all the Plaintiff’s partners.
3 On December 15, 2015, the Changwon market approved the management and disposal plan against the plaintiff and publicly notified it.
B. According to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and the notice thereof is made, the owner of the previous land or structure cannot use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public notice of relocation under Article 54 of the same Act. As recognized earlier, the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan was given, the Defendants cannot use or benefit from each real estate listed in the attached list, and are obligated
2. Defendant B’s assertion that the judgment of Defendant B could not seek adequate real estate to move in the vicinity, but it cannot be a legitimate ground for the Plaintiff’s refusal of the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of real estate. Thus, it cannot be accepted.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit.