beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in Section 1 of [Attachment I];
B. Defendant C is listed in Appendix 1 List 2.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is a housing redevelopment improvement project association established to implement housing redevelopment improvement project in the Busan Dong-gu G G, Busan, including each building listed in the attached list, and obtained authorization for the establishment of the association on April 28, 2006, the authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project on May 13, 2010, and the head of the Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City approved the management and disposition plan on July 20, 2015, and announced it on July 29, 2015.
The defendants occupy each building listed in the attached list within the redevelopment project zone of the above house.
[Ground of recognition] Defendant B, C, D, and F: The entire purport of the argument and the purport of Defendant E: The main text of Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Etc., of the judgment on the cause of claim for confession: “When the authorization of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced, the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leaseer, etc. of the previous land or structure, may not use or profit from the previous land or structure until the date of public announcement of relocation under Article 54.” Thus, the head of Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City approved the management and disposal plan for the Plaintiff’s housing redevelopment project on July 20, 205, and the public announcement on July 29, 2015 is as seen earlier. Therefore, the Defendants who possess and use each building listed in the attached list within the implementation zone of the rearrangement project in this case, are obligated to deliver each building to the Plaintiff,
As to the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant B, C, D, and F are null and void, and thus, the Plaintiff’s housing redevelopment project is unlawful, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with. However, there is no proof of allegation as to the grounds for invalidation. Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
In addition, Defendant B, C, D, and F are paid the lease deposit and the moving expenses of tenants.