건물명도(인도)
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Appendix 1 list;
B. Defendant C shall provide the real estate listed in the annex 2 list.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the plaintiff's claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including evidence with a serial number), the facts identical to the entry of the cause of the claim in the attached Form can be acknowledged.
According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff may file a claim for delivery against the defendants who possess each real estate listed in the annexed real estate list, except in extenuating circumstances.
If such special circumstances exist, the legitimacy of the defense will be examined below.
As to Defendant B’s defense, the Defendant has a right to receive resettlement money, relocation expenses, and directors’ expenses, which is compensation for loss, and may refuse to deliver until such compensation for loss is completed.
There is no proof of the defendant to prove that the claim for the right of compensation occurred. The defendant's relocation subsidy, the defendant's relocation subsidy, and the residential relocation expenses are not proven.
This part of the defendant's defense is not reasonable.
Article 81 (1) proviso 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Transfer of Movables does not clearly dispute the Plaintiff, and Article 81 (1) proviso of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Transfer of Movables constitutes compensation for losses under the Public Works Act, and the defense that the Plaintiff would refuse to deliver until the payment is made is essentially a prior performance defense and the defense that the delivery would not be prohibited from exercising the right of defense in civil procedure is referred to in the Incheon District Court Decision 2018Gadan225660 Decided October 31, 2018. The re-
According to the evidence A No. 13-1, the Plaintiff’s deposit of KRW 652,49 on February 7, 2019 with Defendant B’s movable property transfer cost in consultation, thereby completing such compensation for losses.
The plaintiff's second defense is reasonable, and the defendant's defense is not accepted.
Next, the defendant asserts that the problem owned by the lessor is not compensated for the loss.
However, the defendant is the plaintiff.