beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list;
B. Defendant C shall set out in attached list 2.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association with the size of 107,165 square meters located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D, as a project implementation district, which has obtained approval from the head of Seongbuk-gu pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Defendant B is an owner and occupant of the building listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the said project implementation district, and Defendant C is an owner and occupant of the building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the said project implementation district.
B. On November 26, 2013, the head of Seongbuk-gu publicly announced the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013 after authorizing the implementation of the project. On March 18, 2016, the head of Seongbuk-gu publicly announced the management and disposal plan on March 24, 2016.
C. On October 28, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal: (a) expropriated the instant 1 and 2 buildings for the said rearrangement project; and (b) rendered a ruling on December 16, 2016 on the commencement date of expropriation.
On December 8, 2016, the date prior to the date of expropriation, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 544,110,000 as the deposited money, and KRW 88,50,000 as the deposited money on December 7, 2016, respectively, with Defendant C as the deposited money.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence No. 6-7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building 1 and 2 by depositing the compensation for expropriation, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C to the Plaintiff, respectively.
B. The Defendants’ assertion filed the instant lawsuit with the intent to promptly deliver a building after the acceptance ruling was made after the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit prior to the acceptance ruling, which constitutes an abuse of rights and thus ought to be dismissed.