beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B and C receive KRW 305,785,315 from each Plaintiff, simultaneously with the list 1 and 3.
Reasons
1. Presumed facts
A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of removing previous structures on the land of 102,200 square meters in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, which are located on the ground of 102,200 square meters and newly constructing multi-family housing, etc. (hereinafter “the instant reconstruction project”).
B. Defendant B and C are the owners of 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant one real estate”); Defendant D are the owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter “instant real estate”); Defendant E is the owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 5 and 6 (hereinafter “instant three real estate”); and each of the instant real estate is the land and buildings located in the reconstruction project district of this case.
C. The Plaintiff obtained the consent of the owner of the building in the instant reconstruction project and its appurtenant land on September 20, 2007 for the reconstruction project of this case and the establishment of the association, and completed the registration of incorporation on October 18, 2007.
The Defendants consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association and became a member of the Plaintiff.
(Defendant B and C signed and sealed by Defendant C on their behalf, not in the written consent to the establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Project Association, on behalf of Defendant B, and they asserted that they were attached to the back side of the written consent to the establishment of the Housing Reconstruction Project Association, and that they did not consent to the establishment of the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above Defendants’ assertion.
The plaintiff publicly announced the sale and received the application for parcelling-out from the members under Article 46 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out determined by the plaintiff is March 12, 2009 and the first time.