logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.06.03 2014가단15425
건물인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) on the area of 51,526 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the approval for the establishment of the Plaintiff on July 18, 2008; the authorization for the implementation of the project on November 25, 2009; the authorization for the implementation of the project on June 22, 201; the authorization for the implementation of the project on May 22, 2013; and the authorization for the implementation of the project on May 30, 2013.

However, on September 25, 2014, the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government revised and publicly notified the implementation of the relevant improvement project on September 25, 2014. The Plaintiff received an application for re-sale from November 20, 2014 to December 24 of the same year against the persons who maintain their membership.

The Defendant was the original owner of the building indicated in the attached list of the instant improvement project zone (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and was a member of the Plaintiff’s association. However, the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for re-sale conducted on November 20, 2014, and became a person subject to cash settlement.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 71, 72, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and the judgment of this court are demanding the defendant to deliver the building of this case.

Article 49(6) main sentence of Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “When authorization for and public notice of a management and disposition plan is granted, the owners, superficies, persons having rights to lease and lease, etc. of the previous land or buildings shall not use or benefit from the previous land or buildings until the date of public notice of relocation under Article 54.” The main sentence of Article 49(6) provides that “No person having rights to such land or buildings shall use or benefit from the previous land or buildings until the date of public notice of relocation

arrow