본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울동부지방법원 2017.01.23 2016가단114393

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.



Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 16, and 17, as to the A-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter "the instant project") implemented by the plaintiff pursuant to the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notice C on April 26, 2012, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Tribunal is obligated to deliver the instant building to the plaintiff on May 27, 2016 by designating the defendant's compensation amount as KRW 6,594,258,450, the date of commencement of expropriation as of July 15, 2016 (hereinafter "the instant building") and the relevant site as of July 15, 2016, and the Plaintiff deposited the amount of compensation under No. 2682 of the instant court No. 2016, Jul. 8, 2016, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the plaintiff by acquiring ownership on July 15, 2016, except in extenuating circumstances.

Although the defendant asserts that the adjudication of acceptance of this case should be revoked illegally, as long as the above adjudication of acceptance was not void automatically, the plaintiff's claim cannot be avoided solely on the ground that there was a ground for revocation. Rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal on July 8, 2016, seeking the revocation of the adjudication of expropriation under 2016Guhap68724, but the above court dismissed the claim on December 22, 2016.

The Defendant and Songpa-gu Office stated that “The instant garage is an area where the construction may not be commenced immediately because it is not the principal place of business for the housing redevelopment project implemented by the Plaintiff, and thus, it would be allowed to use it as a garage for at least three years until the replacement notice is prepared, and this is an expression of intent to suspend a request for extradition. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s request. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff made the above declaration of intent, and the entry of the certificate No. 4 alone by the Songpa-gu Office expressed such intent.