소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part, thereby citing this case by the court of first instance pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Defendant asserted that the judgment of the first instance court was erroneous in unfairly understatinging the market price of each real estate of this case on the basis of the market price assessment entrustment with respect to appraiser K, which is based on the assessment of the market price of each real estate of this case. The Defendant did not consider transaction cases of H large 24 square meters, L previous 20 square meters, and M large 165 square meters, etc., but did not consider transaction cases of real estate of this case.
B. 1) Determination 1) Compared with the illegality of the selection of comparative standard land shall take precedence over the specific use area within the urban planning zone, barring any special circumstance, and the actual land category should take precedence over the actual situation outside the urban planning zone. However, if there is no such land, the natural and social conditions should be selected identical or most similar to the land subject to appraisal, taking into account the characteristics of the land category, use, surrounding environment, location, etc., and even if there are somewhat differences between the specific use area of the standard land and the land subject to appraisal and the surrounding environment, it cannot be readily concluded that the selection of standard land is erroneous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64627, Sept. 10, 2009; 206Da64627, Sept. 10, 2009).