beta
Text
1. The Defendant points out each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, as the implementer of the B Corporation (hereinafter “instant project”), obtained authorization of the implementation plan under Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act for the instant project, and publicly announced it.
B. The Defendant, among each real estate listed in the separate sheet to be incorporated in the instant project, owned the buildings on the (B) floor of the prefabricated Subdivision, which successively connects each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, and 147 square meters on the ground of Section 1, 147 square meters in the ship (A), among each real estate listed in the separate sheet to be incorporated in the instant project, and owned the buildings on the (B) section 147 square meters on the ground of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, and 147 square meters in sequence, in the order of each point of Section 5, 5,6, 7, o, and
C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation of each of the instant buildings with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee in order to not reach an agreement with the Defendant to acquire each of the instant buildings. On August 28, 2017, the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of acceptance with the purport that “each of the instant buildings, etc. shall be expropriated, but compensation for losses shall be KRW 795,324,690, and the date of commencement of expropriation shall be October 12, 2017.”
On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 12,793,00,00 in this court, as the gold No. 8716, 2017, on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal to receive compensation.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff legally acquired the ownership of each of the buildings of this case. Thus, the defendant, the possessor of each of the buildings of this case, is obligated to deliver each of the buildings of this case to the plaintiff.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.