소유권이전등기
1. An appeal against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are added in the trial.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap's written judgment of the court of first instance added the following explanation to the end of "1. Basic Facts" (No. 5, No. 21) of the judgment of the court of first instance; Gap's written evidence No. 9 and No. 16 (including additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) which are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion; the plaintiff's testimony is rejected; the plaintiff's selective addition of the judgment to the main claim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following determination with regard to the main claim selected in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited as a summary under the main sentence of Article 420 of the
[Supplementary Parts]
E. The death of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the inheritance of the remaining Defendants, and the inheritance of the Defendants (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) died on December 8, 2014 in which the trial was pending, and the remaining Defendants, who are their children, inherited the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B in their respective shares of shares of 1/4, and took over the legal proceedings.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. The Plaintiff filed a return of unjust enrichment related to each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 24, 26, 27, and 27, and the amount of compensation for expropriation was calculated based on the actual use status, not the land category listed in the separate sheet Nos. 24, 26, 27, and 27 as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 list. As such, the Defendants at least 432,242,00 won in total of the officially announced land price at the time of expropriation and the total amount of compensation for expropriation was 695,709,626 won in 263,467,626 won (69,709,626 - 432,242,00 won in total) at the time of expropriation. The Defendants asserted to the purport that they should refund to the Plaintiff the amount of compensation for delay and delay damages.
Although the land category on which the above three lots of land was entered is “forest”, it is recognized that the Defendants could have received more compensation for expropriation since it was actually developed and utilized as an orchard, etc., but only invested their own funds in the first place.
or at all times. .. 1.