부동산 인도
1. The defendant delivers to the plaintiff the plaintiff 52.8928m2 the building without permission for the steel bars located on both the land of Seodaemun-gu Seoul and D.
2...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with the housing redevelopment and rearrangement project district of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government of 77,020 square meters wide.
B. The Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish the association on April 29, 2008, authorization to implement the project on June 24, 2009 (hereinafter “instant authorization to implement the project”); and obtained authorization to revise the project on December 27, 2013; and obtained the authorization to implement the project on June 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant authorization to implement the project”); and the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the said management and disposition plan around that time.
C. Seoul Western-gu, Seodaemun-gu, and D 52.8928m2 (hereinafter “instant building”) are located within the implementation zone of the instant improvement project.
The defendant occupies the building of this case as the lessee.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2-8, and 3-8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. When an approval of the management and disposal plan provided for in Article 49 (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) concerning the cause of the claim is publicly notified, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended, and the
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). The fact that the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approves and announces a management and disposal plan concerning the instant improvement project on or around June 30, 2016 is as seen earlier. As such, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, who is a lessee of real estate located within the implementation zone of the instant improvement project, whose use or profit has been suspended, is obligated to deliver the instant building possessed by the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer of the instant improvement project.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The summary of the argument;