logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.12.26 2019나35795
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership that sets the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D Class as a project implementation district.

The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the project implementation plan on October 1, 2015 to the plaintiff, and approved and publicly notified the management and disposal plan on May 10, 2018.

The defendant occupies the above real estate as a lessee of the real estate listed in the attached list located within the project implementation district.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) According to Article 81 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act, a person holding a right, such as the owner, superficies, person holding a right, lease right, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or benefit from the previous land or building until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86, unless any of the grounds prescribed in the following subparagraphs is publicly notified:

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s announcement of the authorization of the management and disposal plan against the Plaintiff was made, and thus, the Plaintiff, the project implementer, can proceed with the project by removing the buildings in the rearrangement zone. For this purpose, the right holder of the land or building must transfer the land or building he/she possesses to the project implementer. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted as reasonable.

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

arrow