beta
Text
Defendant B delivers the building listed in attached Form 8 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C delivers the building listed in attached Form 10.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff is a project implementer who performs a rearrangement project (redevelopment) in a rearrangement zone with a lot of 67,848.54 square meters in front city and 335 square meters, including each building listed in the attached Form owned and possessed by the Defendants.
(Evidence A No. 1 and 2). On December 5, 2017, the former Mayor authorized the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan concerning the instant improvement project and publicly announced it in the Official Gazette.
(A) On November 21, 2018, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendants on the compensation of the instant building, but did not reach an agreement, filed an application for adjudication with the Provincial Land Expropriation Committee of Jeollabuk-do. On November 21, 2018, the said Expropriation Committee decided on KRW 109,632,200 of land compensation for Defendant B, KRW 40,350 of building compensation, KRW 40,00 of land compensation for Defendant C, KRW 91,75,50 of land compensation, KRW 32,114,100 of building compensation, etc.
(A) Nos. 12 and 13. The Plaintiff refused to receive the compensation determined by the ruling of acceptance, and deposited all the compensation money to the Defendants to the Jeonju District Court on December 28, 2018.
(A) According to the duty to deliver a building, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).
The Defendants asserted that the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling is less than the amount of compensation. In light of the purport of Article 65(1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and Article 88 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, it is reasonable to deem that the delivery obligation of the building subject to expropriation arises when the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling is paid in the future.