소유권이전등기
1. The Defendants shall receive each of the money stated in the attached Table 1 “amount” from the Plaintiff at the same time.
1. The premise is that the Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association that completed the establishment registration on January 25, 2016 with the approval of the establishment of the association on January 21, 2016 in order to promote a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter referred to as “instant reconstruction project”) within the JJ of Gangdong-gu Seoul pursuant to the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”).
② The Defendants owned each pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) located within the instant reconstruction project zone, and the Defendants did not consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff Association.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. In a case where a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association, which has established a sales contract, files a lawsuit seeking the implementation of procedures for the registration of ownership transfer by exercising the right to demand sale against a person who does not consent to the establishment of an association, and the written peremptory notice of reply as to whether to participate in reconstruction is attached to the complaint or the copy of the briefs, insofar as the association issued a peremptory notice as to the right to demand sale by serving the complaint or the copy of the briefs attached with the peremptory notice, it can be deemed that the effect of the other party's right to demand sale has the same effect as exercising the right to demand sale on the day following the expiration of the period of reply, as the condition that the other party should not participate in the reconstruction project within
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da63380 Decided July 15, 2010). On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants and served the instant complaint on June 2, 2016, and “in accordance with Article 39 of the former Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings,” respectively.