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. Quotation of the first instance judgment
A. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court except for seeking spot division by expanding the area of the part on the ship indicated in the separate sheet among the instant real estate in question than the co-ownership share ratio. In light of the evidence submitted in the first instance court and each evidence submitted to this court along with the above allegations, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 159,273,200, equivalent to the portion on the ship indicated in the separate sheet among the instant real estate divided to the Defendant for the purpose of adjusting economic value according to the ratio of co-ownership, such as the indication of the separate sheet.
B. Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the respective “this court” of the second and third sides of the judgment of the court of first instance as the respective “first instance court”, and each “the result of subdivision survey” of the second and third sides 16, and the respective “the result of subdivision survey” of the second and fourth sides 4 as each “the drawings”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
On September 10, 2019 after the closing of argument on July 23, 2019, the Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) without comparing the economic value of the part on the ship indicated in the annexed drawings among the instant real estate after division, there was an error in calculating the decline in value by comparing the unit price of the instant real estate before division and the unit price of the aforementioned part on the instant real estate after division; and (b) as regards the amount of market appraisal, the allocation conditions before division are 0.96, and the latter allocation conditions after division are 0.95, which are not large, constitute an appraisal error.
(1) However, after the first instance court divides the real estate of this case in kind according to the co-ownership ratio, the value of the above part (B) divided.