건물명도
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. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established under the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project on the scale of 55,523 square meters, and obtained authorization for the establishment of the association on July 4, 2008 from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the authorization for the implementation of the project on February 27, 2009, and the authorization for the implementation of the management and disposal plan on February 3, 2014 (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”). The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the details of the authorization for the instant management and disposal plan on February 6,
B. The Defendant leased and possessed the portion (a) of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 11, 10, 10, and 1 of the three floors of the building located in the above rearrangement zone, among the three floors of the building indicated in the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 11, 10, and 10,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”).
C. On May 22, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal set the date of expropriation as the date of July 10, 2015 and set the compensation for the Defendant as 5,0370,000 won. Accordingly, on June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the above compensation for the Defendant as the Seoul Northern District Court gold 2559 in 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. When the public notice of approval of a management and disposal plan prescribed in Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and lessee of the previous land or building, shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer shall be able to use and profit from the former land or building (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine,