소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The Defendant’s ground of appeal cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the Defendant withdrawn the assertion of violation of jurisdiction from the preparatory document dated April 30, 2019 to the administrative court.
The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are judged to be justifiable even if the evidence presented by the defendant was presented to the court in the first instance.
Therefore, the reasoning for this court's explanation is as follows, and the defendant, as the ground for appeal, added the judgment of the court of first instance, especially as to DaNN as the ground for appeal, is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.
[Supplementary part] Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "the result of the appraiser D's appraisal" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to "the result of the appraiser D's appraisal of the court of first instance (hereinafter "the appraiser of first instance")."
Part VI of the judgment of the first instance shall be subject to the second sentence " June 16, 2017" as " June 6, 2017."
In the sixth instance of the first instance judgment, the first to seventh to seventh to Grade 1 shall be followed as follows.
Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the notice of this case reached the Defendant on April 6, 2017, it is doubtful whether the Defendant received the notice of this case at the above date and time, and even if the Defendant alleged to be the Defendant, on April 6, 2017 (the next day after the Plaintiff sent the notice of this case to the Plaintiff).
Even upon receipt of the instant peremptory notice, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 2, 2017, before two months elapse from the expiry date of the period of reply by the peremptory notice as to whether to participate in re-building. However, the Plaintiff’s delivery of a copy of the instant complaint on October 11, 2017, which goes through the process of correction and transfer to a collegiate panel, is significant in this court.
Considering these circumstances, the exclusion period of the exercise of the right to demand sale is limited.