건물명도(인도)
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established for the purpose of housing redevelopment improvement project for the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 65,58 square meters of land for Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of Eunpyeong-gu and publicly notified on May 4, 2017.
The defendants are the owners of each building listed in the attached list, such as the statement in the purport of the claim, and even after the above administrative disposition plan and public notice, occupy the building.
(C) The fact that there is no dispute)
2. Determination
A. As above, since there was the approval and public notice of the management and disposal plan as above, the defendants are obligated to deliver each building to the plaintiff, who is the implementer of the housing redevelopment project in this case, pursuant to Article 81 (1) and (2) of the Urban Improvement Act.
(1) The Defendants, who are members of the Plaintiff association, asserted that they have the duty to deliver real estate in accordance with Articles 10 and 37 of the Plaintiff’s articles of association. However, as seen next, the Defendants lost their membership as a person subject to cash clearing, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion premised on the Defendants’ membership is without merit
As to this, the Defendants asserted that they are subject to the cash settlement money of the Defendants, and they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of the Plaintiff’s building until they are paid the liquidation money. 2) First of all, the health unit for Defendant B and the Defendant B had applied for the initial application for the parcelling-out, but have thereafter expressed their intent to withdraw the application for parcelling-out, and the Plaintiff Union decided to be subject to cash settlement at the 17th regular meeting, which is therefore the said Defendant is subject to cash settlement (Defendant B submitted an application for parcelling-out on July 30, 2014, the initial period for the application for parcelling-out, but the said Defendant was erroneous with the intent to withdraw the application for parcelling-out from October 26, 2015, and the disposition plan of the Plaintiff Union on May 4, 2017.