Applicant 1 and one other (the attorney appointed by the applicant representative)

Korea

The motion of this case is dismissed.

The decision of this Court to permit the sale of corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2017-1690 on January 23, 2018 (2018-Ba3002) between the claimant and the respondent regarding the delegation case of the delivery and execution of the real estate at this Court No. 2017-1690, shall be revoked. The respondent's request for special sale of corporeal movables on the delegation case of the delivery and execution of the

1. Basic facts

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized:

A. On October 2010, the Respondent consulted with the applicant to acquire land and buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in which applicants, including land ( Address omitted), etc. (hereinafter “the instant land”) operate the two kinds of money (hereinafter “the instant land”) and to transfer goods. However, the Respondent did not reach an agreement with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 25, 2012, on the ground that it did not reach an agreement due to the issue of compensation, etc., the Respondent received a ruling of expropriation (compensation 2,412,64,90, and the date of expropriation) (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) and deposited compensation to the competent court, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 26, 2012.

B. The petitioners were dissatisfied with the above ruling of expropriation and raised an objection against the increase of compensation from the Central Land Expropriation Committee on August 22, 2013, but the appellate court rendered a judgment ordering additional payment of compensation to the respondent (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Guhap21839, Daegu High Court 2015Nu5840) as a result of an administrative litigation again seeking the increase of compensation for losses (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Guhap21839, Daegu High Court 2015Nu5840). While the applicant filed an appeal, the appellate court was dismissed on January 31, 2018,

C. The applicants did not deliver the instant real estate to the respondent by July 18, 2012, which was the starting date of expropriation, and continued to perform their duty of delivery thereafter. The respondent filed a lawsuit with the Daegu District Court to seek return of unjust enrichment against the applicants, and on November 30, 2015, the Reconciliation Recommendation Decision (Seoul District Court 2015Gahap203947, hereinafter “Reconciliation Recommendation Decision”) with the purport that “the applicants shall move out and deliver the instant real estate to the respondent by December 31, 2015,” which was finalized around that time.

D. On October 16, 2017, the respondent filed an application for compulsory execution with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “application for compulsory execution of this case”) with the court No. 2017No. 1690, Oct. 16, 2017, with the enforcement title, in order for the applicant to not perform his/her obligation according to the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation of this case. However, the above court enforcement officer prepared a real estate non-delivery protocol to the effect that “the execution of this case is impossible due to the reasons that it is difficult to find a place where approximately 6,00 pigss in the instant real estate are to be moved for custody” on December 21, 2017, and did not execute delivery execution.

E. On January 19, 2018, the respondent applied for the sale of corporeal movables (hereinafter “the instant movable”) recorded in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant movable”) including the pigs raised from the instant real estate at the instant court on January 19, 2018, and received a decision to permit the special sale of corporeal movables (hereinafter “the instant decision”). The respondent appealed against the said decision and filed the objection of this case.

F. Meanwhile, according to the fact that the applicants are operating the two houses in the instant real estate until now, and the delivery of the instant real estate has not been made, the commencement of construction works on some sections of national highways, which was originally planned to be completed on December 31, 2014 under the instant project plan, is being delayed.

2. The gist of the petitioner's assertion

The petitioner has endeavored to transfer the two kinds of money of this case to another place, but did not find the place to be transferred, and the decision of this case is not "the neglect of reception" of the movable property of this case, and thus is erroneous in the decision of this case in violation of the requirements of Article 258 (6) of the Civil Execution Act, which is not the object of compulsory execution.

3. Determination

In light of the above facts and records, the applicants were obligated to deliver the instant real estate by July 18, 2012, which is the date of expropriation of the instant case. However, the Central Land Expropriation Committee, based on the premise that the transfer of the instant real estate would be possible at least five (5) years from the date of expropriation, determined that the applicants would have been partly increased the amount of compensation under the same premise, not the compensation for the closure of the instant real estate, and that the said request would have been made for sale of the instant real estate under the premise that the applicants would not have been able to deliver the instant real estate to the 20th anniversary of the fact that the said request was made for sale of the instant real estate. The applicants were not able to receive new construction permit for the instant 20th anniversary of the date of sale of the instant real estate and the transfer of the instant real estate to the 10th anniversary of the date of sale of the instant real estate, and that there was no other evidence that the two applicants would have been able to receive the transfer of the instant real estate from the 16th anniversary of the instant real estate.

On the other hand, although the petitioners filed an application against the respondent's application for the sale of this case against the prohibition of speech, and the court's acceptance of the application result in avoiding the Land Compensation Act, the decision of this case without any legal basis is alleged to be unlawful. However, the evidence submitted by the applicants alone is not sufficient to recognize the decision of this case. As seen earlier, the decision of this case is based on Article 258 (6) of the Civil Execution Act, and it is not erroneous in the violation of the requirements, and therefore, the applicants' assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's objection of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-won