beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project on June 12, 2003 from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to 150 buildings on the land of 405,782.40 square meters outside Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul and six parcels pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); and around April 2008, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project from the head of Songpa-gu pursuant to Article 28 of the Urban Improvement Act; the authorization for the implementation of the project on December 26, 2013; and the authorization for the implementation of the project pursuant to Articles 48 and 49(2) of the Urban Improvement Act on January 27, 2015.
B. On June 26, 2007, the Defendants are co-owners who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Nos. 104, 48, Dong 104, Songpa-gu, Seoul. (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
C. The Plaintiff, upon setting a period from May 2, 2008 to June 27, 2008, issued a public announcement of sale to its members, and thereafter received the application for parcelling-out from January 25, 201 to January 28, 201. The Defendants became a cash liquidation agent according to the fact that the application for parcelling-out was not filed until the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out.
On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, including the transfer of ownership (Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Gahap4737), and received KRW 212,142,857 from the above court. At the same time, Defendant C and D received KRW 141,428,571, respectively, and at the same time, Defendant C and D were paid KRW 141,428,571, respectively, and the Plaintiff did not have any limitation on their rights to the apartment of this case, and delivered the said real estate on May 1, 2014. The Plaintiff appealed against the Defendants, but the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Na14589) appealed on January 29, 2016.