소유권이전등기
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 319,112,140 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association authorized by the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on December 21, 2007.
B. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to implement a project with the enforcement area of 52,476 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained authorization to partially alter the reconstruction implementation area, site area, housing site area, sales household, and horizontal type.
C. From May 30, 2013 to July 28, 2013, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from a cooperative member, and extended the period to August 11, 2013 (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”); again, received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for parcelling-out”).
The defendant owns and occupies the real estate of this case within the above rearrangement project zone, and agreed to the establishment of the plaintiff's association, but the plaintiff was the member, but did not apply for the application for parcelling-out during the above period for
E. Meanwhile, the present real estate of this case was completed by the registration office of the Seoul Northern District Court Dobong, which was completed on March 19, 1994 as of March 19, 1994, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on December 21, 1994 as of December 21, 1994 as of December 89384.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association but fails to file an application for parcelling-out, thereby losing the status of the Plaintiff’s member. As such, the Plaintiff’s primary exercise of the right to demand sale by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which is based on sale and purchase as of August 12, 2013, the date following the end date of the second application for parcelling-out, which is the date following the date of completion of the second application for parcelling-out,