beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list;
B. Defendant C is indicated in paragraph 2 of the same list.
Reasons
1. The facts following the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 9, and 16 (including paper numbers), and can be admitted as a whole by examining the purport of the entire pleadings.
The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established under the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement an urban environment rearrangement project in approximately 63,231 square meters of land for each building listed in the attached list, including the site for each building listed in the attached list. The Plaintiff was granted authorization to establish the association on December 30, 2008 from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the authorization to implement the project on September 26, 2013, the authorization to implement the project on May 7, 2015, and was notified of the management and disposal plan on May 7, 2015
B. Within the above business zone, the Defendants owned buildings listed in the attached list No. 1, Defendant C, Defendant D, the buildings listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the same list, Defendant E, and Defendant F and G owned buildings listed in Paragraph 6 of the same list, respectively, and are eligible for cash liquidation who did not file an application for parcelling-out within the Plaintiff’s application period for parcelling-out.
C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in order to ensure that consultation on cash settlement with the Defendants was not reached. On July 24, 2015, the Seoul Local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City decided on the commencement date of expropriation with the Defendants on September 11, 2015.
Defendant 1 B 12,00,00,000 6,829,162 (3) 1,306,271 20,135,432 C 12,00,000 3,1333,135,480 (1) 653,135,786,615 3D 12,000,0006,829,162 (3) 1,306,27120,135,434 E 12,00,000,008,187,187,454 (4) 979,2167,168,168,168,206,29636,205,206,206,70,7168,206,306,2616,79,206,2636,7, etc.
D. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation as stipulated in the above acceptance ruling, and the following.