건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The grounds for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the additional party members are as stated in the corresponding part of the defendant, which is the cause of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments, and therefore, they shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article
There is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant about the recognition of the part corresponding to the judgment of the first instance.
The Defendant: (a) on July 13, 2016, the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government issued an authorization to implement the instant reconstruction project (hereinafter referred to as “instant authorization to implement the project”); and (b) on the authorization to implement the project of this case, the father of “the completion of the formation of the consultative body and the submission of the operational plan” (hereinafter referred to as “the father of this case”) was added, and as long as the father of this case did not implement the instant authorization, the Plaintiff’s delivery order in accordance with the instant authorization to implement the management and disposal plan of this case is null and void; (c) however, even if the father of this case did not implement the instant authorization to implement the instant reconstruction project, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed null and void
In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has the obligation to pay compensation for the defendant under Article 42-5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments, which was newly enacted on January 5, 2017, and that the plaintiff did not perform the above obligation, the plaintiff's delivery order is groundless. However, even if the plaintiff bears the obligation to pay compensation for losses to the defendant under Article 42-5, the above Article 45-2 of the defendant's assertion was revised and newly established only after the authorization for the implementation of the project in this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.