logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.05 2016가단229044
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 65,000,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association whose project area covers 65,553m2,00 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was publicly notified on June 9, 2016.

B. On October 28, 2015, the Defendant leased and possessed the instant real estate located in the said project implementation district in KRW 65,000,000 from D and thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), when a management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the use and profit-making by the right holder, such as the owner and lessee of the previous land or structure, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use and profit from the same. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant

B. The defendant's argument that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before the refund of the lease deposit is made. Thus, the defendant's argument is justified since the duty to return the plaintiff's lease deposit to the project implementer and the duty to deliver the defendant's real estate of this case to the tenant under Article 44 (1) and (2) of the Urban Improvement Act is based on the same factual and legal relationship as the execution of the housing reconstruction project and the termination of the lease contract.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff simultaneously with receiving KRW 65,00,000 from the Plaintiff as the lease deposit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow