beta
Text
1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:
A. Each factory building indicated in the attached list of 173 square meters and ground-based land in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From around 1993, Defendant A owned each factory building and container indicated in the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”) and on the ground order, and established the Defendant B Co., Ltd. to carry on the manufacturing and installation of steel structure.
B. On December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land, including the instant land, based on the acquisition of a public site on the same day, following the procedures for expropriation, and paid KRW 96,471,00 to Defendant A the compensation for the instant land on January 18, 201, and KRW 132,335,000, respectively, on February 5, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 5, video of evidence A6 and purport of whole pleading
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant land and each factory building on the ground to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, and to collect each of the above containers.
3. The defendants' assertion that the defendants are entitled to possess the land of this case until an appropriate obstacle is paid, because they are businesses subject to the examination of KS examination standard products and manufacturing business pursuant to Article 16 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Standardization Act, and require additional expenses for reexamination of relocation and the period of relocation. However, even if the defendants filed a separate lawsuit on the amount of compensation increase, it is insufficient to view that they have the right to possess the land of this case by the date of closing argument of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Accordingly, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.
4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is accepted.