beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall indicate, among the strata of the second real estate listed in the attached list, the annexed drawings 1, 2, 3, 4.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established with the total area of 174,801 square meters in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul as a project implementation district, after obtaining authorization for the implementation of the project on December 21, 2009 from the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received an approval for the implementation of the project on December 10, 2015 under Article 49(2) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and thereafter publicly notified
B. The Defendants occupy each corresponding part of the text within the implementation zone of the rearrangement project.
[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
2. According to Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, when the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants the name of the building under Article 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, when the approval of the management and disposal plan is publicly announced in relation to the urban rearrangement project, the owner of the previous land or building and the right holder such as the lessee cannot use or profit from the land or building, and the project implementer can use or benefit from the land or building. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to deliver
3. As to the assertion by Defendant C, the above Defendant asserted that the pertinent part of the property cannot be transferred to the Plaintiff until the lease deposit is returned. However, there is no evidence to prove that the said Defendant concluded a lease agreement and paid the lease deposit (the foregoing Defendant was not present at the date of pleading in progress, and the evidence was not presented. Furthermore, according to the reference materials submitted by the Plaintiff’s legal representative on January 2, 2017, the above Defendant appears to have received the return of KRW 30 million from K, a lessor, on November 21, 2016), and the above argument by the above Defendant is without merit.
4. Conclusion, the plaintiff .