beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
(a) Defendant B delivers the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the annexed list of real estate;
B. Defendant C shall be attached hereto.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of promoting the housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter “the instant reconstruction project”) on the land of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and Defendant B is the lessee of the real estate indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table of Real Estate located within the instant reconstruction project zone, and Defendant C is the lessee of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the same Table (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).
B. The head of Gangnam-gu approved the Plaintiff’s management and disposal plan for the instant reconstruction project on December 21, 2017, and publicly notified the plan on December 28, 2017.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The main text of Article 81(1) of the Act on the Determination of Grounds for Claims provides that “When the authorization of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced, any right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 86.” Thus, when the public announcement of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan is made, the use or profit of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, leasee, etc. of the previous land or buildings, shall be suspended, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the Defendants, who were the lessee whose use or benefit was suspended according to the public announcement of the approval plan for the