beta
Text
1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:
(a) Indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1-1 of the annexed drawings on each real estate listed in the separate sheet;
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 2, 2014, the Plaintiffs purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) from Category D (hereinafter “Nonindicted clan”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer each of the instant real estate on June 9, 2014, based on trade as of April 2, 2014.
B. The Defendant, as a member of the non-party clan of this case, installs and occupies each plastic house on the part of “B” 148 square meters and 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 11 of the same map, which connects each point of “B” in sequence of 145 square meters and 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7, 145 square meters and 148 square meters and 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 11 of the same map among the real estate of this case.
(hereinafter “the occupied part of this case”). C.
From June 9, 2014 to July 31, 2016, the sum of the monthly rent for the occupied portion of the instant real estate, among the instant real estate, owned by the Plaintiff, is KRW 8,361,22, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent after August 1, 2016, is KRW 327,064.
Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that the appraisal result of calculating the rent for each real estate of this case is unfair, in calculating the rent for each real estate of this case, the appraiser E applied "the cost method" to the basic price of the leased object by the expected return rate on the ground that it is difficult to capture the rent for each real estate of this case. In light of the fact that the method of calculating the rent for each real estate of this case appears to be an appropriate method to calculate the rent for each real estate of this case, it cannot be deemed that the appraisal result of the rent for each real estate of this case by the appraiser of this case is against the rule of experience or that it is unreasonable to deem that the result is unreasonable, and thus the Defendant's above assertion is rejected.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, and objection against both main offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court.