beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) the real estate listed in [Attachment A] List of Real Estate;
B. Defendant C shall list the attached real estate.
Reasons
Basic facts are as follows: (a) the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement Project”); and (b) around October 29, 2015 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”); and (c) the Plaintiff received the approval of the management and disposal plan around October 29, 2015; and (d) announced it around that time
Attached Form
The real estate recorded in the list of real estate is within the implementation zone of this case.
Defendant B owns the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, and Defendant C owns the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2, and the Defendants occupy the above real estate as of the date of closing of argument
The Plaintiff deposited the total amount of each expropriation compensation with the Defendants prior to the commencement date of expropriation ( February 10, 2017) as follows, according to the adjudication rendered by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 23, 2016.
On February 10, 2017, Defendant B (the deposit number of the deposited person) Nos. 1, 1, 2017, Defendant B (the deposit number of the deposited person), Defendant B (the deposit number of the deposited person) 2, 659, 94, 335, 660, 202, Defendant C on February 10, 2017, 5930, 6360 [the grounds for recognition] of 593, 630, 360 [the grounds for recognition] of 2017, A, 1 through 5, 8, 12-1, 3 (including the number of serials; hereinafter the same shall apply] of each of the facts that the management and disposition plan under Article 49(3) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claim for the whole pleadings, the use and profit of the right holder, such as the owner of the previous land or building, is suspended, and the project implementer can be announced by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s en banc Decision 25, 2005.
Therefore, within the implementation zone of the instant improvement project.