beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Schedule No. 1;
B. Defendant C shall be listed in the attached Table 2.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 22, 2012, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).
B. The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the Plaintiff’s project implementation authorization on December 20, 2013; the project implementation authorization on May 27, 2016; and the authorization on the management and disposal plan on December 29, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant management and disposal plan”); and the announcement on January 12, 2018.
C. The Defendants possessed the instant real estate as the owner of the instant real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1 located within the said project implementation district (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).
The Plaintiff deposited compensation for losses with the Defendants, the owner of the pertinent real estate, as deposit money, according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation.
[Based on the recognition] Defendant F, H, I, K, L, and M: The absence of dispute, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments set forth in the Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including the branch numbers), Defendant C, D, E, G, and J: Defendant B (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) main text of the Civil Procedure Act). Service by publication (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Determination
A. When the public notice of the management and disposal plan stipulated in the Act on the Determination of the Grounds for Claims is given, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094, Dec. 22, 192; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants acquired the right to use and profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-