건물명도
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
3...
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for partial revision or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
The proposal of the 13th order of the first instance judgment (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) shall be amended to “the building indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached list” as “the building of this case.”
The fourth sentence of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to “ December 31, 2012” as “ January 16, 2013.”
The fourth and fourth written judgment of the first instance is amended to “ February 16, 2013 and February 28, 2013” as “ February 16, 2013.”
A fourth person of the judgment of the first instance.
The following facts shall be added to this subsection:
A person shall be appointed.
(j) On January 7, 2015, after the judgment of the first instance was rendered, A died on January 7, 2015, and in relation to the instant case, the share ratio of the Plaintiff litigants is K, L, M, Q 1/5, N3/35,O, and P 2/35, respectively.
“The ground for recognition” in the text of the judgment of the first instance is amended as follows: “The 4th [the ground for recognition] of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the additional construction cost of furniture C, etc., without any dispute; (b) the description of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 through 15, 18, 19, 49, and 50; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (d) the “real estate” of four parallels 6, 14, 9, and 10 shall be revised as “the instant building.” The 16th parallels of the judgment of the first instance shall be revised as “value-added tax”; (d) the 18th parallels of the judgment of the first instance shall be revised as “42,230,000 won” (the defendant shall be deemed to have not been admitted as KRW 18,00,00,0000; and (e) the correction of the 16th parallel of the judgment shall be recognized as KRW 101.
2. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case must be accepted on the grounds of the reasons.
The judgment of the first instance is consistent with this conclusion.