beta
Text
1. Defendant C received KRW 23,199,00 from the Plaintiff, and simultaneously with each land listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”).
B. Of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1, there are 72 square meters of cement block cement tank and roof housing on the ground of the attached Table 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 2, which are successively connected to each point of the attached Table 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 72 square meters of land on the ground of the attached Table 1, 2, 11, 9, 10, among the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2, there are cement block structure and 11 square meters of land on the ground of the residential roof (hereinafter “instant housing”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 3, and the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Sungdong Vice-Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claim against Defendant C
A. 1) First of all, in light of the legal and de facto disposal authority of the instant house, as to who is the legal and de facto disposal authority of the instant house, the entire purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) the instant house is unregistered and registered as the owner of a general building ledger around 1968; (b) Defendant C purchased the instant house from E and paid rent for the instant building site to the Plaintiff [Article 6 of the sales contract (Evidence 6) between Defendant C and E], the real estate indication of which was completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 4, 1973, is “FFF FF FF FF 2, 13 square meters and 5 square meters of a single-story house,” but it is reasonable to deem that the instant house was actually purchased from the Plaintiff, while Defendant C had not actually purchased the instant house from E and purchased the instant house, it was reasonable to deem the instant house rent for the purpose of the sale and purchase of the instant house.
Defendant . As such, Defendant .