logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.02 2018가단218643
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B delivers the real estate listed in the Appendix 1 List;

B. Defendant C is listed in the Appendix 2 List.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim and the overall purport of the pleading (the defendant C is deemed to be a confession), the defendant D occupies each of the above real estate as the lessee of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1 as well as the lessee of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2 as the lessee of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2, and the plaintiff is a housing redevelopment improvement project association in the area of 19,59.50 square meters in Seoul, Yangcheon-gu where each of the above real estate is located, which is a housing redevelopment project association in the area of 19,59.50

According to the main sentence of 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 owners, lessees, etc. of the previous land or buildings cannot use or benefit from it, and the project implementer can use or benefit from it. As such, the Defendants, the lessee of the real estate located within the project site of this case, are obligated to deliver

2. Defendant B’s assertion argues to the effect that the instant real estate cannot be transferred before being granted the right to move into the redevelopment apartment because it constitutes a subject to which the right to move into the redevelopment apartment.

However, even if the above defendant is subject to the redevelopment rental apartment occupancy right, such reasons alone cannot avoid performing the duty of delivery itself recognized under Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified.

arrow