beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B delivers a building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2;
B. The defendant C shall list the annexed list.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including household numbers), the plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Office on December 1, 2008 for the establishment of the association pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the management and disposal plan was approved on March 24, 2017 and announced on March 30, 2017 for the housing redevelopment project within the project area. The defendant did not apply for the purchase of the building Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter "the building in this case"). The plaintiff was the owner of the building in the attached list Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter "the building in this case") located within the project area in the above project area. The plaintiff was the defendant Eul on May 22, 2019 who deposited the deposited person as the defendant Eul on March 22, 2019, deposited KRW 87,180,160, and the defendant C's spouse as the plaintiff's spouse in this case No.
2. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, the Defendant B asserted that ① a serious defect in the above expropriation ruling is null and void, and an objection is raised to the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and ② the compensation for loss was not completed due to the payment of housing relocation expenses, etc.
① The above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge that the above expropriation ruling is null and void only with the descriptions of evidence 1-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if Defendant B contests the validity of the above expropriation ruling, if the executor of the housing redevelopment improvement project deposited compensation for losses as prescribed by the expropriation ruling by the competent Land Tribunal, it shall be deemed that the compensation for losses under Article 49(6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents has been completed. Therefore, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da40097 Decided August 22, 2013.