beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: The real estate listed in the Appendix No. 5;
B. The defendant C shall be the real estate listed in the attached Form 7 list.
Reasons
1. Determination as to claims against Defendant B, C, F, and G
A. Indication of claim: The part on the defendants in the annexed cause of claim shall be as stated in the annexed sheet.
(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D and E
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Gap evidence No. 4-7, Eul evidence No. 1-2, and Eul evidence No. 2, the above Defendants, the lessee of the real estate stated in Paragraph 1-C of the Disposition No. 49(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "the Urban Improvement Act"), as a result of the public notice of the approval decision of the management and disposal plan of this case, lost their right to use and profit from the real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1-3, and the plaintiff union acquired the right to use and profit from the real estate listed in the Disposition No. 1-2, 2, 10, 11, and 1 of the real estate listed in the Attached Table No. 7 list, are obligated to order the plaintiff to order the (Ga) part 9.61m2 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case").
B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff union did not notify the Defendants of the fact that the management and disposal plan was authorized and announced, and that the Plaintiff union’s right to residence and right to life were infringed upon upon upon upon upon upon due to the Plaintiff union’s request for surrender of order, and that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with before receiving the payment of the relocation cost
The first argument by the Defendants is premised on the premise that the Plaintiff Union has a duty to notify the lessee of the instant real estate of the fact that the management and disposal plan was authorized and announced, but there is no legal basis to acknowledge that the Plaintiff Union has such duty of disclosure. Therefore, it is without merit without any need to examine the second argument by the Defendants.