Main Issues

In the case of an abuse of rights claim based on the premise that the price of the building site and the building is significantly different from that of the building site owner, the standard time for calculating the price.

Summary of Judgment

In the case where the owner of a building claims the removal of a building constructed on the site, the standard time of the price in the case where the owner of the building can claim the abuse of rights under the premise that there is a substantial difference between the site and the building, can not be said to be the standard market price at the time of exercising the right.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 2 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

For the largest use

Defendant-Appellant

Monoum

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do398 delivered on February 23, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 61Do398 delivered on February 23, 1962

Text

The appeal shall be dismissed.

Reasons

In the event that the owner of a building constructed on the site of the defendant's ground of appeal claims the removal of abuse of rights under the premise that there is a remarkable difference between the price of the building site and the building on the site, the standard time for the price at the time when the right was exercised shall not be deemed to be the market price at the time when the right was exercised, or the price at the time when the right was acquired is not the standard. According to the original judgment, the court below recognized, based on legitimate evidence, that the price at the time when the appraisal was conducted by the court below was 5,24,40 million won for the building at this time, and determined that the price at this time is not 5,250,000 won for the building at this time, and there is no reason to hold that there was no obvious difference between the plaintiff's price at this time when the building was constructed and that there was no right to request the defendant to remove the building site at this time when the defendant did not request a provisional disposition for the removal of the building on the new site or that there was no reason to conclude that the plaintiff's right to use was no violation of the new building at this principle.