건물명도
1. The Plaintiff:
(a) Defendant B, C, D, and E are buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list;
B. Defendant F shall set forth in paragraph 2. of the same list.
1. The facts following the facts are deemed to have been led to the confession by the above Defendants pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, D, E, and H. It may be acknowledged that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff, Defendant F, and G, or that the entire purport of the arguments in the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.
The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership with approximately approximately 63,231 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, and the Defendants owned real estate in the attached Table within the said project implementation zone as the Plaintiff’s members.
B. On December 30, 2008 and September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a management and disposition plan from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Plaintiff held a general meeting on July 29, 2014 and passed the agenda, such as “case of the formulation of a management and disposition plan,” etc., and obtained authorization for the management and disposition plan from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 7, 2015. The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the contents of authorization for the management and disposition plan on
2. Determination:
A. When the determination of the cause of the claim and the public notice of the authorization of the management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, the Defendants whose use and profit-making have been suspended pursuant to the public notice of the authorization of the management
B. The defendant G does not have a legitimate certificate of personal seal impression attached to the written consent for the establishment of the association submitted by the plaintiff at the time of applying for the establishment authorization or after applying for the establishment authorization.