beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Appendix No. 4;
B. Defendant C is KRW 4 million from the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim: ① The Plaintiff is a reconstruction association which obtained authorization for the establishment (change) of a partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents from the head of Mapo-gu on June 26, 2012 with the project area of KRW 65,148 square meters as the project district; ② the Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Mapo-gu on June 3, 2016 from the head of Mapo-gu with regard to the above project and publicly notified as of June 9, 2016; ③ the Defendants are a lessee of real estate listed in the attached Forms 4 and 5 located in the business area; ④ the Defendants are currently occupying the above real estate as the lessee of real estate listed in the attached Tables 4 and 5; ④ the Defendant C entered into a lease contract with KRW 4 million and the monthly rent of KRW 2 million with the real estate owner listed in the attached Tables 5, and paid the above deposit to E, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the arguments described in subparagraphs 1 through 4.
According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments and Dwelling Conditions, when the authorization of a management and disposition plan is publicly announced, the right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building, cannot use or profit from the previous land or building. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate possessed by the Plaintiff within the Plaintiff’s business area (Provided, That the Defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff
2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion
A. Defendant C asserted that the reconstruction association, such as the Plaintiff, can claim delivery only after the acquisition of ownership of the pertinent real estate by exercising the right to purchase, but is not accepted as an independent opinion.
B. Defendant C asserted that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the housing relocation cost, but the said Defendant is entitled to receive the housing relocation cost.
Even if the purpose of recognition is the project implementation, the owner's loss is incurred.