logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.01.18 2016가단231108
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 50,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

The plaintiff union's assertion and determination of the parties is the housing reconstruction and improvement project association for which the establishment (change) is authorized by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents on June 26, 2012 by making the total area of 65,148 square meters as the project implementation district of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the project implementation district, and on June 3, 2016

6.9. The fact that the head of Mapo-gu Office has announced it; D is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet located in the project district of the Plaintiff’s association; the fact that the Defendant leased and occupied real estate listed in the separate sheet from D; and the fact that the Defendant paid D the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 to D may be recognized by taking into account all the arguments in Gap’s evidence and all the arguments.

According to the above facts, pursuant to Articles 49(6) and 44 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff the real estate listed in the attached list at the same time as he receives KRW 50,000 from the plaintiff.

Furthermore, although the defendant asserts that he has the right to receive the expenses for relocation of the director or the expenses for relocation of the residence, the defendant's assertion about the expenses for relocation of the director or the expenses for relocation of the residence cannot be asserted as a ground for defense in the civil litigation, aside from the dispute about the legitimacy and scope

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow