beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in Section 1 of Annex 1;
B. Defendant C is listed in Appendix 1 List 2.
Reasons
1. Determination on both arguments
A. The Plaintiff received authorization from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the establishment of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association and authorization for project implementation on February 2, 2017. The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced a management and disposal plan approved on March 2, 2017 (Public Notice H in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government). After that, the Plaintiff deposited the compensation, etc. for the said Defendants with Defendant B, D, E, F, and G as the depositee on October 19 or August 20 of the same month as of August 25, 2017 by the local Land Expropriation Committee of Seoul Metropolitan City on August 25, 2017. Meanwhile, even if the Defendants were classified as the object of liquidation due to the Plaintiff’s lack of application for parcelling-out, the Defendants deemed to have occupied the relevant building portion on the attached list between the Plaintiff and Defendant C pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants, or the purport of the entire number of pleadings may be included in the pleading.
According to these facts, in relation to the Defendants, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have completed all the compensation procedures provided for in Article 46 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obliged to deliver each of the relevant parts to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
B. As to this, Defendant E contests the purport that the request for extradition of this case against the above Defendant on the ground as follows is unreasonable. However, only ① the circumstance that Defendant E did not constitute “pre-consultative body” cannot serve as a justifiable ground to block the Plaintiff’s request for extradition of the instant building, and ② the Plaintiff’s request.