beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall receive KRW 337,802,340 from the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established to implement a housing reconstruction project as stipulated in 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”) on the land located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Group, and the Defendant is a person who owns real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in the business area.
B. The Plaintiff’s authorization to establish a new business area and authorization for modification thereof are originally 48,775 square meters of land in HJ as the business area, and completed the registration of establishment on July 30, 2003 after obtaining authorization for establishment from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 29, 2003. However, on August 19, 2010, as the business area was expanded, designated and announced more than the previous one, the Plaintiff obtained the consent of at least 75% of the owners of land in a new business area, etc., and completed the registration of establishment on June 29, 2012 after obtaining the authorization for establishment change on June 26, 2012.
C. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant stating that “if the Plaintiff consented to the change of the establishment of the association within two months from the date of receipt of the peremptory notice, and if it is deemed that the Plaintiff did not consent to the change of the establishment of the association or did not reply within two months, it will exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the former Act,” which was returned.
(2) After that, on December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant at the court of first instance, stating the purport of exercising the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the former Act on the Grounds of Claim, and demanding the Defendant to submit a reply as to whether to participate in reconstruction, and demanding the sale on the basis of the day following the expiration of the answer period stipulated in the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.