(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가합16297 (1)

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가합16297 (1)

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The defendant B shall list the attached real estate list

5. The delivery of listed real property:

B. Defendant C is the same list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment project partnership which was established for the purpose of housing redevelopment project with the area of project implementation consisting of 22,489 square meters and 222,489 square meters in Suwon-si as prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the articles of incorporation, and has obtained authorization to establish an association from the Suwon City on December 17,

B. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff received project implementation authorization from the water supply market, and was publicly notified on August 25, 2017 of the approval plan for the management and disposal of the water supply market (U.S. E).

C. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet is located within the project implementation district, and the Defendants have occupied each of the above real estate as the owner or tenant of each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate.

After receiving the ruling of expropriation from the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff deposited the full amount of compensation for the Defendant B as prescribed by the above ruling of expropriation, and the Defendant C received the compensation for losses as prescribed by the ruling of expropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6, 8, Gap 5-2, 4, Gap 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the relevant real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate owned by the Defendants to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to use and benefit in accordance with the notice of the management

The Defendants asserted that they did not have any obligation to deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet as a cash liquidation agent until they are paid compensation. However, as seen above, the Plaintiff deposited or paid compensation for losses to the Defendants under the expropriation ruling, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted.

참조조문

-도시 및 주거환경정비법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가합16020

-수원지방법원 2019.03.07 2018가단519232

-수원지방법원 2019.03.28 2018가단519997

-수원지방법원 2019.03.14 2018가단519959

-수원지방법원 2019.04.02 2018가단519737