[토지명도등][집12(2)민,158]
The case holding that the abuse of rights is an abuse of rights if the building requires the removal of the building at the 7 compensation party's market price of the land already constructed and the request for the purchase at the price of not less than two times the adjoining land price.
When purchasing a parcel of land on which a building is located and requesting the removal of a building exceeding seven times the market value, demanding the purchase of such land at a price of not less than two times the price of the adjacent land is an abuse of rights.
Article 2(2) of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Defendant
Daegu District Court Decision 63Na405 delivered on March 31, 1964
The original judgment shall be reversed, and
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the original decision, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of abuse of rights on the ground that the building's market price was 176,860 won higher than the building's price, while the building's price was 176,860 won higher than the building's price, and that the plaintiff sold 350 won or more to 450 won for the land adjacent to the other than the above site, and the defendant demanded the defendant to live in 1,000 won or more than the double amount, while recognizing the fact that there was no land other than the above site, while the defendant recognized the fact that there was no land other than the above site, it cannot be concluded that the above fact that the above fact of recognition exceeded the legitimate limit as an exercise of ownership by social norms.
However, in order to purchase the land on which the building was already built and exercise the market price of 24,00 won, the removal of the building remaining seven times at the market price, and the demand for the purchase of the land to the defendant at a price exceeding two times the price of the adjoining land sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant shall not be made to promote the width, and since the act of width is not permitted by the law, unless there are special circumstances, the plaintiffs' claim in the principal lawsuit cannot be cited as abuse of rights, even though it cannot be cited by the court below, it is reasonable to cite it.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu