logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.31 2015나2047714
청구이의
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a reconstruction association which was established by the sectional owners pursuant to the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings for reconstruction of the F apartment and G apartment, which is the collective housing in the Jung-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul, in accordance with the status of the parties. The plaintiff was the owner of the existing G apartment H (hereinafter referred to as the "previous apartment").

B. On June 30, 2003, the Defendant obtained approval of the project plan from the Sungnam market, and obtained approval of the management and disposal plan on August 24, 2003, and conducted relocation work to remove the existing building between September 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003. From February 1, 2004, the Defendant completed I (hereinafter “new apartment”) on July 20, 207, after completing the construction of the existing apartment from February 1, 2004, after obtaining approval of the completion of the improvement project from the Sungnam market on July 24, 2007, the relocation announcement was made under Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents around September 24, 2007.

C. On April 24, 2004, the Defendant received the application for parcelling-out from the members of the association to sell newly-built apartments for the Plaintiff, and applied for parcelling-out of the same type to the applicants for parcelling-out at the special meeting held on April 24, 2004, and the Plaintiff applied for parcelling-out on April 16, 2004, and thereafter, it was decided to directly attend the said special meeting and to purchase new apartment J-ho, which was newly constructed by drawing.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s charge and its implementation were determined at the above special meeting, together with the determination of the charge due to the determination of the sale price of the new building. According to the above, 20% of the charge as the down payment at the time of the sale contract, 10% of the charge as the intermediate payment at each point, and 10% of the charge as the intermediate payment at each point.

arrow