1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant further determines as to the assertion made by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in

On the third and third sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added.

The defendant in possession of the real estate of this case currently occupies the real estate of this case.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the appraisal price for the instant real estate was unreasonable was too low in light of the actual apartment transaction cases, etc.

Since the Defendant is not an occupant of the instant real estate, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition of the said real estate.

B. The appraiser’s appraisal result as to the assertion that the appraisal result is unfair should be respected unless the appraisal method violates the rule of experience or is unreasonable, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da70420, 70437, Feb. 22, 2007; 2010Da93790, Nov. 29, 2012). The appraisal result of the first instance court’s entrustment of appraisal to E does not seem to have any error as alleged by the Defendant or to have any other significant error. Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court that determined the sales price of the real estate of this case based on the above appraisal entrustment result is just and acceptable. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable. 2) The evidence submitted by the Defendant, including the evidence submitted by the Defendant, as well as the evidence that the Defendant did not occupy the real estate of this case, is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this part is also true.