소유권이전등기 등
1. Defendant B received KRW 123,400,000 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment:
(a) Appendix 1.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Plaintiff is entitled to authorization to establish an association on January 30, 2013 for the purpose of removing existing buildings on the ground of Ansan-si E-gu, Ansan-si and promoting a housing reconstruction project that newly constructs multi-family housing, etc. on that basis, and on February 7, 2013, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).
(2) Defendant B is an owner of the real estate indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 located within the said rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant one real estate”); Defendant C is a real estate indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 located within the said rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant two real estate”); and Defendant D is an owner of the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table 3 located within the said rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant three real estate”).
B. On October 10, 2013 after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the Plaintiff’s right to demand sale, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to urge the Defendants to reply within two months from the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association by content-certified mail. The Defendants reached on October 11, 2013, and the Defendants did not reply for two months thereafter. (2) The Plaintiff sent a copy of the instant written peremptory notice to the Defendants on December 11, 2013, within two months from the expiration date of the reply period, and on February 6, 2014, the period from December 11, 2013 to the two months from the expiration date of the reply period, and served the Defendants with a copy of the instant written peremptory notice on February 1, 2015 (amended by Act No. 13508, Sept. 1, 2015; hereinafter “Defendant 214”). The Plaintiff expressed their respective intent to demand sale to each of the instant real estate in accordance with Article 48 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “E”).
3. The duplicate of the complaint of this case is limited to the time of service to the defendants.