beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.05.23 2018나42368

건물명도

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows. Except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the first instance and the first instance court, the Defendants’ determination is identical to the grounds for the first instance court’s determination. As such, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the following additions under the main sentence of Article 420 of the said judgment. On November 23, 2017, the Central Land Expropriation Committee made a ruling to increase compensation for the land and goods owned by the Defendants, etc. on December 18, 2017. The Plaintiff deposited the Defendant F with the Busan District Court as the victim, with the Busan District Court’s deposit KRW 9504,47,567,320, and the Defendant G deposit with the Busan District Court as the Busan District Court’s deposit with the Busan District Court’s KRW 3054,5745,575,4757,57, May 25, 2017.

2. The defendants of the judgment of the first instance court asserted that the plaintiff cannot immediately request the delivery of a building without following the procedure for vicarious administrative execution under Article 89 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter "Public Works Act"). Article 89 (1) of the Public Works Act provides that the project operator may apply for vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act for the public interest and does not exclude the request for delivery of a building. In addition, the defendants' assertion is without merit, since Article 89 (1) of the Public Works Act provides that the project operator may apply for the vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act for the sake of the public interest and does not exclude the request for delivery. In addition, the defendants' assertion is without merit.