beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From November 20, 1966, there was a ground building (referring to a total of 121.82m2m2 and hereinafter referred to as “instant ground building”) composed of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3 large-scale 89m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) and the neighboring land, on the land located above the building (67.57m2, 22.38m2), and a store (31.87m2, a total of 121.82m2m2). Since around 1971, the Plaintiff operated a laundry by leasing a store among the instant ground buildings, and the Defendant was residing behind the instant land, and the Defendant was residing behind the instant land.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly purchased the instant land and the above ground buildings according to the necessity of each other in around 1983. Of the above ground buildings, the Defendant’s possession and use of internal debt and dried debt among the above ground buildings, and the Plaintiff decided to own and use the store, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 7 million to the Defendant around September 1983.
C. On the other hand, around September 1983, a sale certificate for the instant land and the building on the ground was prepared. The sale date is August 27, 1983; the price is KRW 8,092,250; the seller D; and the receiver of the sale certificate is indicated as the defendant.
On September 30, 1983, the defendant was registered under the name of the defendant alone as the owner of the instant land and the above-ground building, and on January 24, 1989, only 37.87/12 of the above-ground building was completed on January 24, 1989.
E. However, the surrounding areas including the instant land were designated as E-Housing Redevelopment Project Zone on September 6, 2010, and the Defendant received 207,450,425 won (the instant land portion of KRW 177,777,50) as liquidation money from the said redevelopment project association (29,672,925 won among the instant ground buildings), and on September 10, 2010, transferred all the shares owned by the Defendant on the instant ground buildings to the partnership.
E. The Plaintiff and the Defendant removed from the lower store in 2010, and the present ground buildings of this case were all removed.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, and .