logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2018.08.22 2018나20973
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive KRW 1,021,651,880 from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a party 1) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

Pursuant to the foregoing, the Seoul Nam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City 59,673.80 square meters (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”).

) Housing reconstruction rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement project”) to remove old and inferior existing buildings on the ground and to newly build 1,069 households and neighborhood living facilities on the ground.

(2) The Plaintiff held an inaugural general meeting on October 19, 2016 and completed the establishment registration on October 28, 2016 with the approval of establishment from the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City, the head of the Gu on October 28, 2016.

3) The Defendant’s real estate indicated in the “real estate indication” column in the annexed sheet in the instant improvement zone (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

2) On January 26, 2017 and February 21, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant peremptory notice”) to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 48(4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”) if it is deemed that the Plaintiff would have consented to the establishment of the association within two months from the date of receipt of the peremptory notice, and that “the Plaintiff would exercise the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Planning and Improvement Act and Article 48(4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the instant peremptory notice”), and the Defendant did not reply to whether he/she consented to the establishment of the association within two months from the receipt of the said peremptory notice on February 23, 2017.”

2. The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to request sale of each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant through the service of a copy of the instant complaint attached by the above peremptory notice to the Defendant.

arrow