logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.02.21 2016가단501472
매도청구
Text

1. The defendant is paid KRW 194,141,280 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time the defendant is stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiffs obtained the approval of the housing construction project plan from the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City Dong-gu, the project implementer of which is the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the instant project approval”) from the head of Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, to implement the housing construction project on the ground of the site area of Gwangju Dong-gu and 96 lots (hereinafter “instant project site”).

B. The Defendant, on March 22, 2003, acquired the ownership of each real estate listed in the Defendant’s separate sheet, completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) and the buildings listed in the separate sheet on its ground (hereinafter “instant building”). The building, other than the buildings not registered on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “unregistered building”), is owned by the Defendant without completing registration.

C. The plaintiffs to acquire ownership in the business site of the plaintiffs below

D. (2) As indicated in paragraph (2), the date of delivery of a copy of the purport of the claim and the application for change of the cause of the claim filed on January 5, 2017 to the Defendant is from 6,678 square meters and 17,103 square meters of the instant project site among the instant project sites before exercising the right to demand sale, which is the date of sale, to which the said Plaintiffs did not acquire ownership by the said deadline, excluding the land area owned by the Defendant and the Nonparty 1 (referring to reference materials submitted by

4. As to the acquisition of ownership. D. After the sale consultation and the plaintiffs’ request for sale of real estate, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to purchase and sell each of the instant real estate located in the instant project site after the approval of the instant project, but no trade consultation was made, and the plaintiffs made a claim for sale under Article 18-2 (1) 1 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 1480, Dec. 27, 2016) against the defendant on January 20, 2016.

arrow