beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
(a) Defendant B is the real estate listed in the Schedule No. 1;
B. Defendant C shall be listed in the attached Table 2.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership with the area of project implementation consisting of 63,773.17m2 in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located in the said project implementation district, and the Defendants owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the same order as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, and possess and use it.
3) On January 7, 2016, the Changwon City approved and publicly notified a management and disposal plan against the Plaintiff. 4) On April 25, 2017, the Gyeongnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation on the commencement date of expropriation as of June 16, 2017, and the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for the Defendants on June 12, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. 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, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and the notice thereof is made, the owner of the previous land or structure cannot use or benefit from the previous land or structure until the date of the public notice of relocation under Article 54 of the same Act. As recognized earlier, the public notice of approval of the management and disposal plan was given, the Defendants cannot use or benefit from each real estate listed in the attached list, and are obligated
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff did not go through the compensation consultation procedures with the Defendants; (b) did not pay housing relocation expenses to the Defendants; and (c) the consent ratio of the Plaintiff’s association fell short of 75%, which is the legal consent requirement; and thus, (d) the establishment ratio of the Plaintiff’s association is likely to be null and void. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion against the original market for the same reasons.