logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나22535 (1)
부동산명도등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Correction of the purport of the claim in the trial.

Reasons

1 Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project on June 12, 2003, the authorization for the implementation of the project on April 1, 2008, the authorization for the implementation of the project on December 26, 2013, the authorization for the implementation of the project on January 27, 2015, respectively, and on January 29, 2015, the management and disposal plan was publicly notified by the head of Songpa-gu.

B. The defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list and is the commercial partner belonging to the plaintiff, and the above real estate is located within the above reconstruction project zone.

C. According to the Plaintiff’s articles of association Article 5(1) of the Plaintiff’s articles of association, “members in a project implementation district shall invest in kind their own land and ground in a cooperative (hereinafter omitted),” and Article 32(1) of the same Act provides that “members who remove a house due to a project implementation shall move at their own expense during the project implementation.” According to Article 32(4), “members shall move out of the relevant house within the relocation period determined and notified by the cooperative, and if there are tenants or temporary residents, they shall move out of the relevant house at their own expense.”

On July 27, 2007, the Plaintiff resolved that “a relocation for a reconstruction project shall be resolved, the time of relocation shall be delegated to the board of directors, taking into account the progress procedures, and shall be notified to the members.” On May 19, 2012, at the general meeting of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff passed a resolution that “a relocation shall resume within the earlier time after the general meeting with a financial company, and the time and procedure for relocation shall be delegated to the board of directors.”

E. On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff publicly announced that the period of relocation from July 7, 2014 to August 8, 2014 should be set to the members of a commercial building, in accordance with the provisions of the above Articles of Incorporation and the resolution of the general assembly.

Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute.

arrow