beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall have the 296.4 square meters of the geographical floor among the real estate listed in the attached list;
B. Defendant C Co., Ltd.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association established to implement a housing reconstruction project in the area of 33,593 square meters in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Group.
B. On August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Dongjak-gu and registered the establishment of the association on August 13, 2010.
C. The Plaintiff received authorization to implement the project on December 7, 201, and the authorization to implement the project on May 30, 2014, respectively. The said authorization to implement the project was publicly notified on June 12, 2014.
Since then, on October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained an amendment to a management and disposition plan, which was publicly notified on October 23, 2014.
The Defendants are occupying the text portion of the real estate listed in the attached list in the project implementation district concerned by leasing or lending it for use.
[Based on the recognition, Defendant B, C, and E Religious Organization F.I.D.: Each confession (main sentence of Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. When a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or building, shall not use or profit from the previous land or building until the public announcement of relocation is made pursuant to Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is prohibited, and the project implementer can use or benefit from it. As seen earlier, the Defendants whose use or benefit has been suspended pursuant to the public announcement
As to this, Defendant D Co., Ltd. asserted that the owner of the building did not deliver until the consultation with the Plaintiff was reached, it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, such circumstance does not constitute a ground for setting up against the Plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff's conclusion