logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.03.13 2018나54234
부동산인도 등
Text

1. Following the amendment of the purport of the claim by this court, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

Reasons

The reasons why the court should explain this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this case is quoted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. From the 8th to the 9th 4th son of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part which is dismissed or added is as follows.

In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 30 through 35, and Eul evidence No. 1 submitted at the trial court, and the whole purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's right to claim real estate of this case against the defendant is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is not correct.

As the Plaintiff failed to complete consultation with some landowners in the instant improvement zone, a management and disposal plan was resolved to liquidate cash to the owners of religious facilities sites, social welfare facilities sites, and land for facilities for older persons and children, and the head of the Busan Metropolitan City annual government authorized such plan on March 12, 2018 and announced it on March 21, 2018. Considering such circumstances, it is difficult to deem that there was no reasonable ground to deem that the Plaintiff did not request the members to conclude a sales contract.

Article 73(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “A partner who fails to conclude a sales contract within the period specified by the cooperative after authorization for a management and disposal plan is not subject to settlement in cash.” Thus, Article 45(5) of the Plaintiff’s Articles of incorporation provides that “A partner shall settle the accounts in cash if he/she does not conclude a sales contract within the period specified by the contract for sale” shall be given an opportunity for a project to leave the business by refusing to conclude a sales contract during the pertinent period, such as land that

arrow