logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.02 2018가단5125306
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached real estate list.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and maintenance project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) that promotes a reconstruction project for multi-family housing and ancillary facilities on the site of Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D day-won 399,741 square meters, and the Defendants are the lessees of real estate in the attached list of real estate located in the site of a reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff received the authorization from the head of Gangnam-gu Office to establish an association on October 14, 2003, the authorization to implement the project on April 28, 2016, and the authorization to implement the management and disposal plan on April 6, 2018, respectively, and the head of Gangnam-gu notified the head of the management and disposal plan on April 13, 2018.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Article 81(1) of the Act on the Determination of Urban Improvement provides that “Any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date when the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly notified pursuant to Article 78(4).” Thus, the Defendants, the lessee of the instant real estate, can no longer use or benefit from the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff, the project developer, can make use or benefit from the instant

Therefore, since the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate possessed by themselves to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted.

arrow