logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.09.19 2016가합108609
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The Defendants receive each corresponding money from the Plaintiff in the “amount of payment” column of the attached Table 2 sheet.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a maintenance and improvement project association established under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”) for the purpose of implementing the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Reconstruction Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and completed the registration of establishment on April 28, 2016 after obtaining authorization for establishment from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Defendants are the owners of each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the instant project zone, and each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a written peremptory notice to the Defendants by content-certified mail as to whether they agreed to the establishment of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 39 of the former Act and Article 48 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”).

Defendant B did not reach the above peremptory notice, and the remaining Defendants received the above peremptory notice at that time, but did not respond to whether or not they consented 2 months from the date of receipt. D.

In filing the instant lawsuit on September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff stated in the complaint that “the Plaintiff shall request the Defendants to sell each real estate at the market price based on the delivery of a copy of the complaint in accordance with the Urban Improvement Act,” and stated that “if the demands for consent to the establishment of the association against the Defendants is unlawful, the said Defendants shall be urged to consent to the establishment of the association in accordance with Article 48(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act by delivery of a copy of the complaint,” and attached the Plaintiff’s articles of association and the written consent to the housing reconstruction and improvement project association.”

E. Defendant B was served with a copy of the complaint on January 17, 2017.

arrow