logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.03.21 2010나115357
보관료상환
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance regarding the principal lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under any of the following amounts:

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The designation and public notice of the Prearranged area - The national rental housing complex creation project (Seoul B; hereinafter “instant project”).

- Public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on July 6, 2005, and public notice D of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on December 29, 2005 - Project operator: Plaintiff 2) the Central Land Expropriation Committee on August 23, 2007 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”): The subject of expropriation: Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Fropoculture 6,00ma, non-fropoly fishing 6,000, non-fropoly fishing 50 ma, non-fropoly fishing 10,000 ma, non-fropoly fishing 10,000 ma, 200 ma, 200 ma,00 ma,000 1,000 ma,000 ,000 ,000 ,00 ,06 , 165 ,06 ,5 ,07 ,016 - ,5 ,07 ,00

B. 1) The Defendant refused to receive KRW 112,866,50,00 for the instant adjudication on expropriation, and the Plaintiff deposited the said money with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007 No. 5354 on October 9, 2007. 2) After which the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to voluntarily transfer the obstacles of this case on October 18 and November 2, 2007, and requested the head of Yangcheon-gu to issue a writ of vicarious execution and a warrant of vicarious execution.

On November 14, 2007, the plaintiff sent to the defendant the first vicarious performance order (the execution deadline: November 26, 2007) under the name of the head of Yangcheon-gu Office, and again sent the second vicarious performance order to the defendant, which became the due date on December 4, 2007.

On December 12, 2007, the head of Yangcheon-gu Office who did not transfer the obstacles of this case continuously issued a writ of vicarious execution (a writ of vicarious execution: M belonging to the Plaintiff, Q belonging to the Plaintiff) at the Plaintiff’s request.

arrow