beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: the real estate listed in Section 1 of [Attachment];
B. Defendant C and D shall set forth in attached Table 2.
Reasons
1. Each claim against Defendant D and E
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(b) Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;
2. Each claim against Defendant B, C, F, and G
A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is deemed to be a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) based on the project implementation district of the Seo-gu Daejeon-gu Daejeon District of H 102,769m2 as its project implementation district.
(2) On February 9, 2018, the head of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposition plan and announced it on the same day.
(3) Defendant B, C, F, and G are the respective owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 in the Plaintiff’s project implementation district. 4) The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Daejeon Metropolitan City Land Expropriation Committee, which did not reach an agreement on compensation for losses with Defendant B, C, F, and G, and the said Committee set the commencement date of expropriation as March 11, 2019 and rendered adjudication of expropriation of each of the instant real estate, etc. on the date of January 25, 2019.
(5) On February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 212,98,560, the amount of compensation for expropriation of Defendant C as the principal deposit, KRW 209,103,250, KRW 278,462,130, KRW 407,785,360, KRW 339,61,370 with Defendant C as the principal deposit, and KRW 339,61,370 with Defendant C as the principal deposit. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, evidence No. 5-1, 2, 4, 65, evidence No. 1, 6-1, 7, and evidence No. 1, 7-1, 7-1, and 8-1, 7-1, 8-3, and 1-1, 8-1, 7-1, and 9-1, respectively.
B. Defendant C and F’s judgment on the main defense of Defendant C and F is not based on the Plaintiff’s remedy, but based on unfair procedures.