Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in excess of the order to revoke below shall be revoked and that part.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff owned, from December 5, 1995, to August 28, 201, the building for business use on the land and 23.1 square meters of Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Site (hereinafter “F land”) (hereinafter “instant building”) and the Plaintiff owned the instant building from August 29, 201 to August 29, 201.
B. On December 10, 2013, the Defendant imposed indemnity on the Plaintiff and the Selectioner on the following grounds that the instant building occupies 8.3 square meters (the part on which 15 square meters are written; hereinafter referred to as “the part on which 15 square meters are written), 3.4 square meters in B river (the part on which 22 square meters are written; hereinafter referred to as “the part on which 23 square meters are written; hereinafter referred to as “the part on which 23 square meters are written), 7.3 square meters in B river (hereinafter referred to as “the part on which 3 square meters are written”; hereinafter referred to as “the part on which 0.4 square meters are written), and 0.4 square meters in C ditches (the part on which 25 square meters are written below the right, and hereinafter referred to as “div land”) each at the specific period of possession as indicated in the following table:
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition.” The Plaintiff (the possession period from December 1, 2008 to July 31, 201) was selecteder D (the possession period from September 1, 2011 to November 30, 201) 1, Jongno-gu Seoul E-Road 2 B, KRW 2,803,50,000, KRW 2,803,50,000, KRW 2,8034,50,000, KRW 2,544,50,000, KRW 329,70, KRW 400, KRW 40, KRW 463,200, KRW 43,00, KRW 0.43,00, KRW 0.4329, KRW 295,96, KRW 160, KRW 1400, KRW 1605, KRW 14,601, and KRW 405, respectively).
2. The plaintiff's assertion
(a) 1;
Part of land is not determined and publicly announced as a route or a road zone under the Road Act, and since it does not go through the procedures prescribed by the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Development Act, it is not a road under the Road Act, which is subject to indemnity, but a road under the Road Act, and even if it is subject to indemnity, it is two lots of land with F land abutting on the land and B river area (hereinafter “B”).