beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including costs incurred by participation in the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff owned the building sites C, D, and E and its ground buildings adjacent to the above building site, and the Plaintiff continued the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on September 2 and 3, 2009, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff used the Flue-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 115 square meters (hereinafter “instant one land”; (b) G large-scale 20 square meters (hereinafter “instant two land”); and (c) H large 13 square meters (hereinafter “instant three land”); and (b) the Defendant’s husband, the husband of the Defendant, was required to pay the usage fees; and (c) the Plaintiff, on the instant 2 and 3 land around September 2009, filed a complaint against the said I under suspicion of general traffic obstruction, etc.
B. On March 12, 2010, the Plaintiff and the above I representing the Intervenor joining the Defendant, even if the Plaintiff removed the said fence, the Intervenor did not raise an objection and paid the usage fee for the said land to the Intervenor joining the Defendant. However, on or around the 25th of the same month, in relation to the payment criteria, the Plaintiff agreed to request the Korea Appraisal Board for appraisal of the usage fee on the land of 33 square meters of the instant land and the instant 2, 3 square meters of the instant land and the instant 2, 3 square meters of the said land
(hereinafter referred to as “instant royalty payment agreement”) C.
The Intervenor’s Intervenor rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of usage fees according to the result of the appraisal by a state appraisal corporation, which is not the Korea Appraisal Board, and sought payment of usage fees pursuant to the above agreement as the court 2010da76811. On December 14, 2011, the said court ordered the Intervenor to pay the Intervenor’s Intervenor the site usage fees of KRW 7,250,342 from March 12, 201 to October 18, 2011, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. The Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on April 12, 2013 in the instant case No. 2012Na642, which appealed by the Plaintiff.
【Ground of recognition】An absence of dispute, Gap No. 1.