본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.31 2019가단222453
건물퇴거 등 청구의 소

1. The Defendants jointly leave the building indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.


1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an urban development project association established to implement an urban development project with the business area of 84,492 square meters in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D (hereinafter “instant business area”).

B. On November 14, 2016, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City announced the “A Urban Development Zone Designation (Modification), the formulation of a development plan (Modification), the authorization of an implementation plan (Modification), and a topographic map” and the authorization of a land substitution plan on June 14, 2017.

C. Defendant B is the owner of the building listed in the attached list in the instant project zone (hereinafter “instant building”); Defendant C is the mother of Defendant B, who occupies and uses the instant building.

On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Regional Land Expropriation Committee of Incheon Metropolitan City, and the said Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation on the building in this case (the date of commencement of expropriation January 22, 2019).

On January 16, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 29,450,00 in total amount of compensation for confinement with Defendant B as the principal deposit. On November 5, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,716,390 in total of KRW 2,635,726 as the principal deposit and KRW 1,080,664 as the director’s expenses.

【Ground of recognition】 without any dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, each entry of Gap’s evidence 4-1 through 4, Gap’s evidence 5, Gap’s evidence 6-1, 2, and Gap’s evidence 7 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where necessary under Article 38 (1) of the Urban Development Act, an implementer of an urban development project to determine whether to cause a claim may relocate or remove buildings, etc. in an urban development zone, and where there is a person who occupies buildings, etc. and the relocation or removal is obstructed due to such person, he/she may request the occupant to withdraw for the smooth realization thereof.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da89549 Decided September 4, 2014). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, the implementer of the instant urban development project, is a building within the business area due to the Defendants who own and own the instant building.