beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall display 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached Form 2 drawings among the 1st real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) The head of Mapo-gu Office approves the plaintiff's management and disposal plan established for the urban environment rearrangement project on July 7, 2015;
7. 9. The notice was made.
B. The Defendants are occupying each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the rearrangement zone where the Plaintiff is running the business.
C. On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff received a ruling of expropriation from the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City as of April 15, 2016 on the commencement date of expropriation, and deposited KRW 9,344,00,000 as Seoul Western District Court 2016No1727 on April 11, 2016, and deposited KRW 32,8460,00 as Seoul Western District Court 201Hun-Ba1719.
[Evidence Evidence: Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6, 5, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.
() As a project implementer under Article 48-2 (1) of the Act, an existing building in the project site shall be removed in accordance with the management and disposal plan authorized by the project implementer, and the defendants are unable to use or profit from the previous building pursuant to Article 49(6), and the project implementer is obligated to deliver the pertinent building to the plaintiff who lawfully acquired the right to use or benefit from the building, unless there are special circumstances.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that it is unreasonable to claim delivery of the security money as a lessee because the security deposit was not returned as a lessee or the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling was not calculated appropriately, and thus, the claim is unreasonable.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge Defendant B’s claim for the refund of deposit, and according to the evidence No. 8, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 25 million as Seoul Southern District Court 2016No2148 on May 12, 2016. The Plaintiff asserts otherwise.