beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) the building described in the annex No. 1;
B. Defendant C is the same list of the buildings indicated therein, C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established for a housing redevelopment improvement project with the size of 104,979.30 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-Japan as a project implementation district. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 25, 2009, and obtained authorization for the establishment of a project on October 23, 2012, and obtained authorization for the implementation of a project on November 7, 2013, and obtained authorization for the implementation of a project on November 7, 2013, and obtained authorization for a management and disposition plan on April 24, 2014 pursuant to Article 49 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement
B. The Defendants are owners of each of the real estate stated in the separate sheet (i) through arar (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) located in the project implementation district, who are subject to cash settlement.
C. On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff was adjudicated to expropriate each of the instant real estate by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City as of October 10, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants’ compensation with the court. The details are as follows.
Defendant B, on October 8, 2014, deposited number of the deposited amount on the deposit date of the deposited person, KRW 1,693, KRW 3693, KRW 332,158, KRW 390, KRW 2, Defendant C on October 8, 2014, KRW 3822, KRW 390, KRW 490 on October 8, 2014, KRW 3822, KRW 390, KRW 490 on October 8, 2014, KRW 3697, KRW 327,086, and KRW 190 on October 8, 2014, KRW 1 through 5, KRW 6-1,2, and KRW 7, KRW 8-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole entries and arguments as well as the purport of the arguments as to the entries and arguments as a whole.
2. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635 Decided May 27, 2010, etc., which held that when a management and disposal plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim is publicly announced, use and profit-making by right holders, such as owners, superficies, lease holders, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings.