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 of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below.
2. The addition;
A. The Defendant asserts that the appraisal value of the instant real estate appraised by the appraiser is unreasonable as not reflecting the development gains.
The appraisal result of an appraiser shall be respected unless there exists a significant fault, such as the method of appraisal, etc. is against the rule of experience or unreasonable.
(2) In light of the evidence adopted by the first instance court and the result of the first instance court’s entrustment of appraisal supplementation, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① an appraiser, applying the appraisal method of the transaction of real estate in the building E same as the instant real estate prior to the base point of time of appraisal by applying the transaction comparison method of the transaction comparison method to the real estate; ② an appraiser evaluated the appraisal value of the instant real estate by reflecting the development gains on the commission of appraisal supplementation; ② there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the development gains were not reflected in the above appraisal; in light of the fact that there is no specific evidence to acknowledge that the development gains were not reflected in the above appraisal, it is reasonable to view the above appraisal value as the development gains of the instant real estate as the amount reflecting the development gains of the instant real estate.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. Since the Defendant concluded a sales contract according to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to demand sale of the instant real estate, the Defendant is not a “amount obtained by deducting the secured amount of the right to collateral against the instant real estate from the sale price,” but a “amount of KRW 835,00,000, which is the total sale price,” and at the same time receiving the payment from the Plaintiff.