beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall display 2, 3, 4, 5, and 2 of the attached Form 2 drawings among the real estate 1 floors listed in the attached Table 2 list.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose project implementation district is the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Group, and the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall issue an approval for the management and disposal plan for the Plaintiff’s housing redevelopment and improvement project and publicly notify it on March 24, 2016.
B. The Defendants leased and occupy the pertinent building indicated in the attached list within the business territory of the Plaintiff Union.
[Ground of recognition] Defendant B and D: The fact that there is no dispute between Defendant C and Defendant C, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts, the defendants are obligated to deliver leased buildings to the plaintiff as the project implementer pursuant to Article 49(3) and (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.
B. Defendant C did not receive appropriate business compensation, and thus, it did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim.
In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City may recognize the fact that the plaintiff made an acceptance ruling against the defendant C on September 30, 2016, and the plaintiff deposited the compensation accordingly, and the above acceptance ruling cannot be asserted as a ground for refusal of delivery in the lawsuit of this case, regardless of the dispute over the above acceptance ruling unless the above acceptance ruling has a ground for invalidation as a matter of law.
Defendant C’s above assertion is rejected.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.