토지인도
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the "1,804,000" in the 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance is "1,804,746" and the "Defendant Union" in the 6th of the 7th of the judgment is added "no legal cause" and the defendants' new arguments in the trial are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment in the 6th of the judgment to the following paragraph 2:
(b) 2) Exclusion from the part of sub-paragraph (b) b) cite it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. 1) The Defendant Union, which implements a reconstruction project in accordance with the summary of the Defendants’ assertion, bears the duty to register a trust on the land of this case against the Defendant Union after obtaining the approval of the project plan under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act on June 27, 2003. This is the right of the Defendant Union to occupy and use the land of this case, and the possession of the land of this case by the Defendant Company is based on the above Defendant Union’s title. Thus, the Defendants cannot respond to the Plaintiffs’ request. 2) The Plaintiff’s members of the reconstruction association are obligated to cooperate in the achievement of the purpose of the reconstruction project of the association. The obligation stipulated under the Articles of the Association’s agreement includes the obligation to transfer the land owned by the association for the purpose of trust for the smooth implementation of the reconstruction project of the association.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da23887 delivered on May 30, 1997). In addition, according to Article 36(1) of the Articles of incorporation (Evidence B) of the Defendant Union, the fact that the Defendant Union carried out a reconstruction project according to the trust method is recognized.
However, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiffs, who are not members of the Defendant Union, are dissatisfied with the Defendant Union, taking into account the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 3 and 5 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings.