부동산 매도 등
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation in this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendants asserted that development gains were omitted from the appraised value of the instant real estate.
The fact that the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 8, 2008 pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act and the Act and subordinate statutes, and on January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project for the improvement project of Seodaemun-gu in Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and the real estate included in the instant real estate as the project implementation district for the improvement project on January 26, 2012 is recognized earlier.
The following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the appraisal results and the overall purport of the pleading by the appraiser corporation and the appraisal appraisal corporation, namely, ① after the authorization date of the above project implementation, the appraiser conducted an appraisal on May 18, 2012, on the premise that the sale contract was concluded due to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to demand sale of the instant real estate after the authorization date of the project implementation, and the development gains from the authorization of the above project implementation was formed and reflected in the market; ② the above appraiser violated the rules of the appraiser, as the transaction cases where the real estate location, size, area, etc. of the instant real estate are similar and the development gains are reflected; ② the amount calculated by selecting and assessing apartment units on the 18-dong 5-dong 5-dong 178,450,000 on December 28, 2012; ③ the appraisal of the development gains including the development gains, and ④ the above appraiser violated the rules of the appraiser.
In light of the fact that there seems to be no reason to believe the appraisal result, the appraised value of KRW 181,300,000 of the above appraiser appears to be the market price reflecting the development gains from the objective transaction price of the instant real estate.
The above assertion by the Defendants is with merit.