소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except as otherwise determined in paragraph (2) below, since it is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except as otherwise alleged in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s appraisal result is not reliable in light of the fact that the transaction price of the transaction case adopted by the appraiser is excessively high, and that the appraiser intentionally excluded the appraisal case in the 2016 most recent year.
B. The appraisal result of the judgment appraiser should be respected unless the appraisal method is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da70420, 70437, Feb. 22, 2007). According to the appraisal entrustment to appraiser I by the court of first instance, appraiser I is located in the same address as the apartment of this case. The size of the section for exclusive use and site ownership ratio of the real estate of this case are the transactions conducted around August 2017 and SU apartment-U apartment-type transaction conducted in close time to the market price calculation standard of the real estate of this case among the transactions conducted around August 2017 of SU apartment-207, based on which the market price of the real estate of this case was revised, changed, value-building comparison, and normal transaction price level in neighboring areas were calculated based on the transaction comparison method. The appraisal appraiser of the first instance court selected the transaction case as above can be seen as the reasonable comparison between the transaction price of this case and the real estate of this case.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate.