beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff all the first floor of the building stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Determination on both arguments
A. The Plaintiff, a project implementer under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), obtained authorization of the management and disposal plan from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 14, 2015. The details of such authorization around that time, and the fact that the Defendant occupies the relevant building as a lessee of the part of the building as stipulated in paragraph (1) of the main sentence, may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the items in subparagraphs A and 10.
According to these facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant, whose use or profit has been suspended as a lessee pursuant to the above public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan, is obligated to legally acquire the right to use or profit from the whole building as a project implementer, and to deliver the part of the building
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da62561, Jul. 24, 2014). (B)
The defendant argues that "the liquidation amount to be paid by the plaintiff to the landlord of the defendant is not yet determined, and there is no right to claim the transfer of the real estate of this case to the defendant, such as ownership (the case clearly states that the right to use and benefit from real estate in the project district of the reconstruction association takes place from the land owner who does not consent to the reconstruction resolution, that is, the right to use and benefit from real estate from the transfer of the real estate from the person subject to the reconstruction association). Therefore, as it is apparent that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the transfer of the real estate of this case from the defendant because it is apparent that the plaintiff did not obtain the right to use and benefit from the transfer of the real estate of this case because it is not delivered by the defendant or