logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.15 2019가단223647
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As an aggregate building consisting of eight, six-one households, Dong-gu, Incheon, and seven parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”), the Defendant is a sectional owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”), among the instant loans, in which the use was approved on November 7, 1987.

B. The Plaintiff is an organization established by E, appointed as the manager of the instant loan, with the consent of 51 households of sectional owners, among the 51 households of the instant loan, promoting and establishing the reconstruction of the instant loan loan.

C. On March 22, 2019, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to consent to the reconstruction project of the instant loan, and sent content-certified mail to exercise the right to demand sale pursuant to the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings”) if the Plaintiff did not consent thereto. On April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant against the Defendant and filed a claim for sale of the instant real estate on the ground that the Defendant refused to consent to reconstruction.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion of this case requires excessive repair costs to a old-age building for more than 30 years, which is subject to reconstruction stipulated in Article 47 of the Aggregate Buildings Act.

On March 22, 2019, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to reply in writing to whether he will participate in rebuilding. Since the Defendant expressed his opposing opinion, the Defendant exercised the right to demand sale under Article 48 of the Multi-Family Building Act. At the same time, the Defendant was paid KRW 105,00,000 at the market price of the instant real estate by the Plaintiffs, and at the same time, was obligated to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration based on the right to demand rebuilding sale of the instant real estate on August 26, 2019.

3. The decision of Article 47 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act is made by a majority of 4/5 or more of sectional owners and voting rights.

arrow