소유권이전등기 등
The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
As to this case, our court's explanation is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which is obtained by deducting the following contents from adding them to the following Paragraph 2, thereby citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Defendant D’s assertion on the additional part of Defendant D’s assertion argues that since Defendant D’s right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act is the right to exercise the right to demand sale against a person who is not a partner, Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act cannot exercise the right to demand sale against Defendant D, who is a partner who has agreed to establish an association without providing that Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act shall apply mutatis mutandis. However, the Supreme Court has consented to the establishment of an association but did not apply for sale, and the person subject to cash settlement, who is the owner of land, etc., loses the status of a person subject to sale due to reasons such as not applying for sale, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da81203, Aug. 19, 2010). As such, the reconstruction association is entitled to request a cash liquidation to register the ownership of real estate in an improvement zone by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act on the claim for sale (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da73215, Dec. 23, 2010
Since the officially assessed individual land price of the real estate listed in paragraph (4) of the attached Table No. 4 (hereinafter “land”) owned by the Defendants in the summary of the claim regarding Defendant E and F’s assertion is higher than the publicly assessed individual land price of Ncheon-si, which is the comparative standard, the value of the land is higher than that of the compared standard. However, the appraiser of the first instance court shows that the value of the land was lower than that of the land. Although the officially assessed individual land price of the land is lower than that of the land, the appraiser of the first instance court would rather increase the value of the land than that of the compared standard.