(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단203470

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단203470

조합원 명의변경절차이행 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a)In implementing a housing site development project of the C district on April 2008, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation shall inform the implementation method of the relocation measures that there is a method of supplying migrants housing sites, special supply of housing, and payment of resettlement funds, and shall be subject to livelihood measures "1. Persons to be supplied with the sites

2. A person who receives any business compensation;

3. Selection of persons who have received agricultural compensation of a certain scale or scale;

“Along with the scale of the land and the supply subject to supply, “to provide the level of 20 square meters for neighborhood living facilities or 27 square meters for neighboring commercial facilities”.

B. On September 19, 2017, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation notified the original residents, including the Defendant, to be subject to measures for living in the district, and accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to receive 27m2 from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the land for living in the district.

A. [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant purchase price of KRW 30 million, and paid the purchase price in full by remitting KRW 30 million to the E account at the request of the broker D.

However, if the purchase and sale contract between the plaintiff and the defendant becomes null and void as alleged below by the defendant, the defendant is obligated to return the purchase price of KRW 30 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not have concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff for the sales right of this case, and there was no fact that the Defendant received the sales amount from the Plaintiff.

Even if the purchase and sale contract of this case was concluded between the original and the Defendant, the said sale contract is null and void in violation of Article 32-3 of the Special Act on Public Housing and Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

3. The right of sale in this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is judged.

참조조문

-공공주택 특별법 제32조의3

-공공주택 특별법 시행령 제25조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.12.17 2019가단218427

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.01.15 2019가단71512

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.28 2018가단97012

-인천지방법원 2020.01.15 2019가단200637