소유권이전등기 등
1. The defendant received KRW 58 million from the plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 58 million to the plaintiff
(a) real estate listed in the separate sheet;
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 24, 2014, the Safety Grade E was discovered in the precise safety diagnosis conducted by the 1st, 6, and 7nd, the 1st, 6, and 7nd, the underground floor of the E-Dong (hereinafter “instant safety accident”), and the Fdong and E-dong (hereinafter “instant safety accident”) caused serious defects in major parts, such as “explosive exposure to steel bars, corrosion, concrete stuff, the crack of the outer wall of the underground floor, and the total building to the direction of the corridor,” and the safety grade E, which is the condition that the safety of the facility should be prohibited, should be reinforced or reconstructed, was prevented, and the order for evacuation of residents was issued for E-dong.
B. After the safety accident, the Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list of the above improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu, with the approval of the establishment of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association on May 16, 2017 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of housing reconstruction improvement project of A Apartment-gu. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list of the said improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
C. On June 14, 2017, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant whether he/she consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s partnership, and on the other hand, he/she is a person subject to a claim for sale where he/she does not consent to the establishment of the association within two months from the date of receipt of the official document, and the Plaintiff sent an official document to the effect that he/she would exercise the right to demand sale pursuant to Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”), and the Defendant
E. On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and stated in the complaint that he/she shall exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on October 10, 2017.
[Judgment of the court below]