beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.05.11 2016구합71973

청산금 등 청구의 소

Text

1. As to the land stated in paragraph (1) of the attached list from the plaintiff, the defendant shall state the land in attached Form 3.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 4, 2010, the Defendant was established for the purpose of implementing the housing reconstruction improvement project with the business area of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 25,887.20 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”). The Defendant obtained authorization from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the instant rearrangement project on July 19, 2012, and obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 5, 2013, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff was the owner of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) located within the instant rearrangement project zone, and the Defendant’s member, and applied for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out determined by the Defendant (from December 16, 2013 to February 13, 2014), but did not conclude a parcelling-out contract during the period of parcelling-out sale (from May 27, 2016 to May 29, 2016).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not enter into a contract for sale in lots with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the settlement money of KRW 474,444,00 (the instant land KRW 108,540,000) on the basis of the day following the end of the contract period for sale in lots.

From the above liquidation amount, the Plaintiff did not dispute that the sum of KRW 20,000,00,000 and KRW 24,634,755 should be deducted from the above liquidation amount, but the deduction of KRW 26,33,243,243 as claimed by the Defendant cannot be recognized.

B. Under the articles of incorporation or management and disposal plan of the project implementer for which the obligation to pay the settlement money arises, the parties who have not concluded the sales contract within a certain period after the completion of the period for application for parcelling-out shall settle their rights in cash.