Ownership form where land including a specific section for purchase has been reduced as a result of a replotting disposition, and land including a specific section for purchase has been substituted for land;

Even if the land substitution was reduced as a result of a replotting disposition, it cannot be deemed that a specific portion of land purchase has been reduced in the proportion of the depreciation rate of a replotting disposition even after the land substitution, and it cannot be deemed that it was classified into the land of the building, the land of the building, the shape and the location of the land, and thus, it becomes a co-ownership relationship according to the decreased ratio from the

Article 262 of the Civil Act, Article 61 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

More than 500 persons

Kim Jong-sung

Busan District Court (83 Gohap1779)

1. Each appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

3. Text 1 of the original judgment may be provisionally executed.

The defendant removed the plaintiffs from the ship (a), (b), (c), and (c) the Boke Cap Assessment Co., Ltd. constructed in the part of the 1 unit of the house and 67.5 square meters constructed in the part of the 1 unit of the 1 unit of the house and the 67.5 unit of the house, and paid the amount equivalent to 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for correction of the claim as of July 8, 1983, with 1983 at the rate of 25 percent per annum per annum from the day of completion. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5,00,000 won with an amount equal to 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for correction of claim as of July 8, 1983 to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution.

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant regarding the plaintiffs' claim for removal of buildings shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim for revocation shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. First of all, we examine the plaintiffs' claims for removal of buildings. On March 3, 1982, the fact that the plaintiffs' ownership transfer registration was made for 2015/20 of shares in the site of this case on March 3, 1982, the fact that the defendant's ownership transfer registration was made for 2015/20 of shares in the site of this case is not a dispute between the parties, and the fact that the court below's on-site inspection conducted by the appraiser Kim Jong-ri on April 30, 1982, in full view of the whole purport of the argument as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser Kim Jong-ri of the court below, on April 30, 1982, the defendant constructed a new building as stated in the separate drawing indication (A), (b), and (c) part 67.5 square meters on the site of this case without consultation with the plaintiffs, and it is not clear that the defendant has occupied the building of this case.

According to the above, the plaintiffs were presumed to be co-owned with the above land. On the other hand, the defendant's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's.

④ Finally, since the building of this case was 50,000,000 won or more at the market price, seeking its removal is an abuse of rights against the plaintiffs. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the market price of the building of this case was 50,000,000 won or more at the market price, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the removal was an abuse of rights against the plaintiffs. Accordingly, according to the above evidence, the defendant agreed to remove the building of this case between the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs, but the building was destroyed on December 2, 1981, it can be seen that the building of this case was constructed as a person without consultation with the plaintiffs. Thus, the above assertion is groundless.

2. We examine the following plaintiffs' loan claims.

On January 30, 1981, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to remove 1 Hobbe, 21, 21, 5,000 won of the above previous appraised housing constructed on the site of this case, and on the same day, the plaintiffs leased 5,00,000 won to the defendant with no interest payment under the expense for removal of the building, there is no dispute between the parties. The plaintiff argued that the above loan was to be repaid immediately after the above removal of the building, but there is no evidence supporting that the above loan was due after December 2, 1981. However, according to the records, the plaintiffs asserted that the above loan was to be repaid immediately after the above removal, the plaintiff's claim for correction of the purport and cause of the above loan was stated on July 8, 1983 at the date of pleading of the court below and that the above loan was to be deducted from the price per share of the defendant at the time of sale after the above removal of the building of this case, and the defendant did not appear to have been able to have been aware at the date of the plaintiff's statement 287.18.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiffs' respective claims, the plaintiffs' claims for removal of the building of this case against the defendant are justified and they are dismissed, and the claims for payment of the above loan against the defendant shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court below shall be just, and all appeals against the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be dismissed, and each appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by each losing party, and with respect to the declaration of provisional execution, it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Judges Jeong Man-man (Presiding Judge)