beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts that, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff purchased 1/6 shares of the instant land from K around November 9, 2017 in KRW 1,023,00,000, the market price of the instant land of KRW 1/6 is KRW 1,023,00,000.
As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that since the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract on the 1/6 share of the instant land from K for the purpose of preventing losses that may occur due to the progress of the instant project, the purchase price cannot be deemed as the market price of the instant land.
B. The market price is the objective market price of the land or buildings at the time of exercising the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, where the project implementer exercises the right to demand sale against a person who does not participate in the housing reconstruction project, and at the same time a sales contract is established based on the market price for the land or buildings of a person who does not participate in the housing reconstruction project. The market price is the price which includes the appraised price of the land or buildings on the premise that the land or buildings are not the market price under the premise that the land or buildings are to be removed due to aging or the current state where the housing reconstruction project is not implemented, but rather the market price under
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 21556, 21563 Decided March 26, 2009). As a result of an appraiser’s appraisal, the appraiser shall respect the appraiser’s appraisal method, etc. insofar as the appraiser’s appraisal method is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable.