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 reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion added by the defendant in this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was transferred the ownership of each of the above buildings from the deceased W’s heir L, the first owner of the instant building Nos. 1 and 2. However, the legal superficies against each of the above buildings was also transferred to the Defendant. 2) The statutory superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act, which is determined as follows, is established when the land and the building belong to the same owner at the time of the establishment of a mortgage, and the owner of the land and the building vary due to the exercise of mortgage (Article 366 of the Civil Act). The customary statutory superficies is established when the two owners become different due to sale or other causes without any condition that the land or the building belongs to the same owner, but the building or the land is removed.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da4080 delivered on January 21, 1997, etc.). With respect to the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the health team, the Defendant’s assertion and submission of evidence alone belongs to the same owner, but the same owner of the instant land and the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 were different. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit without having to further examine it.
B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the appraisal result was unfair, despite that the previous annual rent of KRW 100,00 was 5 marbs of rice, the appraisal result calculated as 367,200 won (i.e., KRW 30,600 x 12 months). However, the appraiser’s appraisal result did not err in light of the empirical rule or in light of its rationality.