건물등철거
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. Text 1. A of the judgment of the court of first instance
(d).
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "Nos. 1 through 4 of the first instance court's judgment" is "Nos. 1 through 4 of the second instance court's judgment; "Nos. 9 and 1 of the first instance court's judgment" is "No. 458,430 won"; "No. 452,037 won" is "no. 458,430 won"; and the part of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff and the defendant stressed or added in the first instance court's judgment is identical to the ground for the first instance court's judgment, except for the addition to "the judgment on the previous defense against the plaintiff B and C of the second instance court's judgment on the merits"
In addition, the defendant asserts that if the Seoul High Court's adjustment clause is interpreted as a subordinate claim agreement to terminate the dispute by failing to leave claims and debts between the parties with respect to the construction work for electric power resource housing that occurred until the time the mediation clause is adjusted, it goes against the mediation clause of the Suwon District Court 2004Gahap5996.
The parties to the mediation protocol for the support of the above Suwon District Court is Plaintiff B and Defendant D, and Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff C are not parties under the mediation protocol, so long as they are not parties to the mediation protocol, they cannot be deemed to be subject to the application of the mediation clause for the support of the Suwon District Court.
Furthermore, the Sungwon District Court's Sung-nam branch mediation clause provides for all documents necessary for the Plaintiff B to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant D with respect to land I. Since the Seoul High Court's adjustment clause established after the Seoul High Court's execution of Plaintiff B should not raise any objection with respect to the construction work in the future on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer with respect to land I which was implemented by Plaintiff B is impossible, it is reasonable to view that the Suwon District Court's Sung-nam branch mediation clause was discarded by the establishment of the above Seoul High Court's adjustment clause on land under the premise that the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration is possible.
Therefore, it is true.