건물명도
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 7.
According to the allegations of the parties and the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 9, the plaintiff union is the housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership that implements the housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 4; the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 7; the real estate listed in the attached Tables No. 4 and 7 is located within the district of the housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in this case; on March 24, 2016, the plaintiff union obtained approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of Seodaemun-gu, the head of Seodaemun-gu, the head of Seodaemun-gu, the head of which is the head of the competent Gu; on May 27, 2016, the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 4 was expropriated in KRW 151,14,300; and on July 13, 2016, the plaintiff union deposited the above amount in each of the relevant Seoul District Court.
According to the above facts, pursuant to Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the real estate listed in attached Form 4 to each Plaintiff and Defendant C is obligated to deliver the real estate listed in
In regard to this, Defendant C is currently proceeding with the Plaintiff Union in the process of filing a claim for housing relocation expenses and the lawsuit for cancellation of the adjudication of expropriation. Therefore, it is doubtful whether Defendant C is proceeding with the above lawsuit, and is proceeding with the above domestic affairs.
Even if this is a matter that can be disputed in the administrative litigation, it cannot be invoked as a defense to prevent the Plaintiff’s request for extradition in the lawsuit of this case. Thus, Defendant C’s assertion is rejected.
Therefore, the plaintiff union's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.