건물명도
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim on the principal lawsuit and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim extended at each trial.
A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the construction cost to be paid should not be calculated as the sum of the expenses actually invested by the defendant in the construction of this case is without merit.
In addition, since the testimony of the appraiser in the first instance court and the appraisal result fully reflects the state of the execution of options, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.
[Dissenting Opinion by the Parties] Defendant B, Defendant B, 1, 71, 781 won, 781,687,581 won, 455,122,960 won, 522,377,100 won, (2) 442,676,560 won, 190 won, 190,560 won, (3) 132,920,920,920,000 won, total of 78,980,000 won, 78,980,000 won, 78,000 won, 6365 won, 65, 605, 605, 605, 206, 605, 7686, 605, 205, 7686, 605, 206, 605, 765, 206, 2065, 765, 7,
3. Determination
A. According to the examination and appraisal of the area of the parking lot of the second construction project as agreed by both parties, there is a parking surface in which five additional five parking spaces can be parked outside the boundary line of the building, and if it is included up to time, it can be recognized that the area of the parking lot is 33 square meters. The statement of the evidence No. 10 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition (the above letter is a calculation table of the area of the first floor of the second construction project, and only the area of the parking lot within the boundary line of the building is aggregated with the area of the building as the area of the first floor of the second construction project.
Since there is no other evidence, the contract price agreed upon by both parties shall be acknowledged as the facts of the first instance and as alleged by the defendant.