소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment is as follows. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “(5) theory,” in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, referring to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant emphasizes or adds, is identical to the part corresponding to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “3. Additional Judgment” as to the assertion that the Defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, it is decided to accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. 5) Accordingly, in accordance with the theory of final judgment, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above liquidation money amounting to KRW 34,616,450, and at the same time, to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on each real estate of this case on January 9, 2015. According to the evidence Nos. 15 and evidence No. 17, the Plaintiff deposited the liquidation money on May 18, 2016.
(3) On June 30, 2016, the Defendant asserts that the appraisal price of each real estate of this case is too low compared to the actual transaction cases in the vicinity, and that the development gains from the project of this case were not properly reflected. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the additional assessment price of each real estate of this case was unfairly calculated.
1. If a project implementer exercises a right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act for a person who does not participate in a housing reconstruction project, the sale contract is established based on the market price for the land or building of the person who does not participate in the housing reconstruction project at the same time, and the market price is the objective market price for the land or building at the time when the right to demand sale has been exercised, which is not the market price under the premise of the condition of removal due to aging or the current situation at which the housing reconstruction project has not been implemented, but