beta
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2017.09.21 2016가단106271

건물명도

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Schedule No. 1;

B. Defendant C shall be listed in the attached Table 2.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district covers 63,773.17 square meters of the Pilwon-si, Changwon-si, and each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located within the project implementation district, and the Defendants owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the same order as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, and possess and use it.

(3) On January 7, 2016, the Changwon-do Land Expropriation Committee approved and publicly notified a management and disposal plan against the Plaintiff on January 7, 2016. (4) On April 25, 2017, the Gyeongnam-do Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation on June 16, 2017 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet as indicated in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for the Defendants on June 12, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and the notice thereof is made, the owner of the previous land or structure cannot use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public notice of relocation under Article 54 of the same Act. As recognized earlier, the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan was given, the Defendants cannot use or benefit from each real estate listed in the attached list, and are obligated

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the establishment ratio of the Plaintiff association falls short of 75% of the statutory consent requirement, and thus, have the authority to establish the original market by filing an administrative litigation seeking confirmation of invalidity of the establishment authorization.