건물인도
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (including the appointed party) is dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) on a scale of 51,526 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.
The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the approval for the establishment of the Plaintiff on July 18, 2008; the authorization for the implementation of the project on November 25, 2009; the authorization for the implementation of the project on June 22, 201; the authorization for the implementation of the project on May 22, 2013; and the authorization for the management and disposal of the project on May 30, 2013.
However, on September 25, 2014, the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Mapo-gu") received an application for re-sale from the persons who maintain their membership from November 20 to December 24, 2014 based on the results.
Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed Party D are the owners of the buildings listed in the attached list (1) in the instant improvement project zone, and the designated parties E are the owners of the buildings listed in the same list (2). Defendant C is the owners of the buildings listed in the same list (3). The Defendant (including the appointed parties and the appointed parties) was the original members of the Plaintiff Union. The Plaintiff became the object of cash settlement because it did not file an application for re-sale within the period of application for re-sale made on November 20, 2014 by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 10, 12, 14, and Eul evidence 56
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Defendants asserted that they were members of the Plaintiff Union, and were changed to cash clearing during the instant lawsuit, and that they are obligated to deliver the instant building under Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, and that the Plaintiff is currently proceeding with the compensation procedure for the Defendants, and that is within the rearrangement zone in the instant case.