beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B received KRW 341,683,840 from the Plaintiff and at the same time attached Table 1, 1, 2.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization to establish a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) on June 5, 2012 for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) in the 52,184 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and obtained authorization to establish a partnership on June 26, 2012, and obtained authorization for the establishment of a partnership on December 2, 2017 from the owners of land, etc., and obtained authorization for the change of association on August 2, 2018 from the owners of land, etc. at the general meeting of cooperatives held on December 2, 2017.
B. The Defendants specified each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “third real estate”) located within the rearrangement zone in the instant case, and collectively referred to as “each of the instant real estate” is the owner of the relevant real estate, and the registration of restriction on rights listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (1) (hereinafter referred to as “registration of restriction on rights”) and the registration of restriction on rights listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (2) (hereinafter referred to as “registration of restriction on rights”) are completed on real estate No. 8. 2).
C. On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a written peremptory notice demanding the Defendants to respond within two months to whether to participate in the instant reconstruction project, and each of the said written peremptory notice reached the Defendants around that time. However, the Defendants did not reply to the said written peremptory notice within the said period.
The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to exercise the right to demand sale of each of the instant real estate by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendants. The duplicate of the instant complaint was served on Defendant B, C, E, F, G, and H on November 12, 2018, respectively, to Defendant D on December 27, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 3, 7 to 10 evidence number shall be applied.