소유권이전등기
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is paid KRW 450,000 from the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of the provisions of Section 2.b. and (c) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Revised Part】
B. We examine the amount of the purchase price under 201 to determine the amount of the purchase price.
Inasmuch as the market price at the time of August 29, 2016-201-200 million won is as seen earlier, the purchase price is KRW 450 million.
As to the appraisal result of the appraiser C in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserts that the adequate purchase price is KRW 314 million.0 million.
According to Article 10 of the Rules on Appraisal and Evaluation, the defendant must conduct a field investigation when conducting an appraisal and confirm the objects. However, there is considerable room for doubt that appraiser C has conducted an appraisal without grasping the internal status of 201, and there is an error of law in the first instance trial procedure.
The appraisal result of an appraiser shall be respected unless there exists a significant fault, such as the method of appraisal, etc., against the rule of experience or unreasonable.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, Jul. 9, 2009). There is no evidence to deem that there was a significant error in the appraisal result by an appraiser of the first instance trial. Therefore, the market price under 201 ought to be KRW 450,000,000 according to the appraisal result.
As to 201, the Plaintiff asserted that, on March 2, 2015, the right to collateral security was established, which is the maximum debt amount of 218,40 million won, which is the debtor, the defendant, the creditor, and the association, and that the payment of KRW 218,40 million, which is the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security.
According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it is recognized that the registration of creation of a mortgage was cancelled on March 14, 2017 while the trial was in progress.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
C. The Defendant’s theory of lawsuit is KRW 450 million from the Plaintiff.