logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.06.04 2019구합1839
조합원지위확인
Text

The plaintiff confirms that he is a member of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project implemented by the defendant.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 24, 2011, the Defendant is the implementer of the instant project, who obtained authorization for establishing an association with respect to B-Housing Redevelopment Project (hereinafter “instant project”), the project district of which consists of 83,207 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si C, Suwon-si, and which received authorization for implementing the project on March 9, 2017 (Public Notice D in Suwon-si).

B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 10, 1998, with respect to the multi-family house with the brick structure 104.73 square meters on each of the above lands, the multi-family house with the 34 square meters in Suwon-si E, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the 165 square meters in Suwon-si, and the 104.73 square meters in each of the above lands, the 1st floor, the 91.98 square meters in each floor, and the 2nd floor 84.24 square meters in each of the above lands.

C. However, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the period for application for parcelling-out under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the plaintiff failed to apply for parcelling-

[Reasons for Recognition] Confession (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been in the position to apply for parcelling-out for the instant project as an association member who owns land and buildings within the rearrangement zone of the instant project.

In addition, as long as the defendant does not recognize the status of the plaintiff's member, there are interests in confirmation.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow