beta
Text
1. The defendant received KRW 287,760,00 from the plaintiff and simultaneously received KRW 287,760,000 from the plaintiff,
(a) Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul, 691 square meters.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The defendant is ordered to do so under Section 1-A.
The plaintiff is a co-owner of 264/691 of shares among the lands stated in the paragraph (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case"). The plaintiff is a housing association that has obtained approval of the project plan for the apartment housing construction project in the area where the land in this case belongs, and the plaintiff secured the right to use more than 95 percent of the area of the relevant housing site
B. Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 29, 2018, it is obvious to the court that there was consultation with the Defendant on purchase for the use of the instant land as a housing construction site, and the fact that the period has been over three months or more as of the closing of argument is apparent.
C. According to the result of the fact-finding inquiry with respect to appraiser D, the market price of the instant land as of June 30, 2018 includes development gains of KRW 287,760,00, and according to the evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 13, most of the land in the instant land purchased by the Plaintiff is higher than the purchase price of other land in the instant land.
Each statement of Eul 1, 3, and 5 alone is insufficient to reverse it and there is no other counter-proof.
The purport of the instant claim and the grounds for the instant claim, which contain the Plaintiff’s intent to request the sale of the instant land, are clear that the Defendant was served on July 5, 2018.
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant, pursuant to Article 22 of the Housing Act, is obligated to receive KRW 287,760,000 from the Plaintiff and, at the same time, to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff on July 5, 2018.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.