건물철거 등
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall set forth the plaintiff with the indication of attached real estate No. 2.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be removed or added;
A. The second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, " March 20, 1993," in the second sentence 10, shall be deemed " December 20, 1993," respectively.
B. The following is added following the fourth and seventh of the judgment of the court of first instance.
“The Defendant also asserts that the land category of the instant land is based on the Defendant’s efforts. As such, in assessing the Plaintiff’s damages, the original land category should be the basis for farmland in assessing the Plaintiff’s damages. However, the fact that the Defendant recognized the farmland creation cost diversion charges paid by the Defendant as the beneficial cost is as follows. As such, in assessing the Plaintiff’s damages, it shall be assessed on the basis of the current land category, and therefore, the Defendant’
C. According to the fifth and eighth of the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s duty to remove the Defendant’s building and deliver land, and the Plaintiff’s duty to repay the above beneficial costs are concurrently performed.” The Defendant has the right to attract the instant land until receiving the above beneficial costs, to refuse the Plaintiff’s request for removal of the Plaintiff’s building and delivery of land, and even if the lien is not recognized, the above beneficial costs should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment.
The 7th to 6th of the first instance judgment are as follows.
According to the appraisal results by Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, 23, and the trial appraiser I, the defendant paid KRW 4,822,200 as the exclusive charge for the development of farmland in order to divert the land in this case from farmland to the site for a neighborhood living facility around June 1994, and the value of the land in this case as of November 20, 2015 is KRW 396,210,000, and the value of the land in this case as a site is KRW 424,410,000.