beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1;
B. Defendant C is a building listed in the separate sheet No. 2.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 4-2, 3, and 5, the plaintiff is a cooperative established to implement a housing redevelopment project in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the management and disposal plan regarding the above rearrangement project was authorized and publicly announced May 10, 2018, and the defendants, the defendant (appointed parties) and the appointed parties (hereinafter collectively, the defendants et al.) possess all or part of the real estate in the above rearrangement project area and possess each real estate. Thus, the defendants et al. are obligated to deliver each of the above real estate to the plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit from each of the above real estate in accordance with the above management and disposal plan authorization announcement, unless there are special circumstances.
As to this, the Defendants did not dispute to the purport that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because they did not have any lawful compensation for each of the above real estate, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Defendants, etc. issued a ruling of expropriation on October 26, 2018. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s deposit of compensation for expropriation between December 11, 2018 and December 12, 2018 with the Defendants, etc., so the aforementioned defense disputes by the Defendants, etc. are without merit.
In addition, the defendant (appointed party) is unable to respond to the plaintiff's request before the expiration of the procedure of objection against the ruling of expropriation. However, the objection against the ruling of expropriation does not suspend the progress of the project and the expropriation or use of the land (Article 88 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor). The above objection by the defendant (Appointed party) is groundless.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.