logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.21 2016가단254805
건물명도
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is simultaneously paid KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff and simultaneously entered in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association that has been established to remove old and inferior structures in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and build multi-family housing and ancillary and welfare facilities above, and has obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of a housing redevelopment improvement project from the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for the land of 87,025 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and received the authorization for the implementation of the project on July 14, 2016, and was publicly notified on the same day.

C. The Defendants are lessees who leased and occupy the pertinent real estate indicated in the order located within the instant rearrangement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, when a management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced pursuant to Article 49(6) of the Urban Improvement Act, a right holder, such as the owner, superficies, a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and a lessee, etc., of the previous land or buildings, shall not use or profit from the previous land or buildings until the date of the public announcement of transfer under Article 54 of the Urban Improvement Act, and the project implementer may use or benefit from the former land or buildings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53635, May 27, 2010). Thus, the Defendants whose use or benefit has been suspended pursuant to the public announcement of the approval of the management and disposal plan in this case are obligated to deliver the said part of the building which

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Article 44(1) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the simultaneous performance defense regarding the one-time lease deposit.

arrow