logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.07.22 2015가단205508
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents established for the purpose of improving the residential stability and the quality of residential life of its members by removing buildings within the size of 66,094 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and constructing new buildings on the site, and contributing to improving the residential stability and the quality of residential life of its members. The Defendant is the lessee of the real estate in the attached list of the above improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Plaintiff

The Cooperative was publicly notified by the head of the Bupyeong-gu Office on November 27, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, where a management and disposal plan is authorized and its public announcement is made, the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the date of public announcement of relocation under Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or building. Therefore, the defendant whose use or benefit as a lessee has

As to this, the defendant's assertion that the compensation should be paid to the land, etc. is just the above assertion, but does not assert or prove the specific contents thereof. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow