beta
Text
1. Defendant B:
(a) KRW 14,257,090 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 26, 2018 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 21, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired 6/11 of the share of 83 square meters in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Miscellaneous land (hereinafter “instant land”) at the court auction procedure.
B. Defendant B acquired each building listed in [Attachment List Nos. 1 and 2] on December 29, 1997
(hereinafter referred to as "the building No. 1" in the attached list No. 1, and the building listed in the attached list No. 2 shall be referred to as "the building No. 2".
Defendant C leased the first floor of the building 2 of this case from Defendant B and operated the pharmacy.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B
A. 1) According to the result of the appraiser E’s survey and appraisal on the location of the instant building Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the instant building is located on each of the following grounds: (a) the part (b) of the instant building was connected in order to each of the points indicated in the annexed drawings Nos. 7, 11, 10, 9, 8, 6, and 7 among the instant land; and (c) the part (b) of the instant building was connected in order to each of the points indicated in the annexed drawings Nos. 1, 7, 6, 5, and 1 among the instant land.
B) As a result of the appraisal of the current status of the above appraiser B, it is inconsistent with the appraisal report by the appraisal corporation of the Seoul Central District Court F Auction Case where the plaintiff was awarded the share of the land of this case, and the current status survey was conducted on the basis of the reference point not in July 1979, and the land of this case was completed on October 18, 1973 by the former G (which was divided from the present H, and thereafter completed the building Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, it is necessary to confirm the boundary at the time of completion. As such, it is difficult to believe that the result of the appraisal by appraiser E should be based on the boundary restoration survey result which is surveyed on the basis of the base point at the time of division of the land of this case.