The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 is dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

According to the court below's decision, as part of the policy of securing a hot spring hole for the joint supply of hot spring water to preserve hot spring resources and promote regional development in a hot spring district, the court below established a donation contract for the above portion of land only between the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 2, and decided that the defendant collected the hot spring water from the plaintiff 2, 1982 to Nov. 23, 1984, with the permission of hot spring hole excavation for 3 square meters as stated in the decision from the Gyeongnam-do governor pursuant to Article 5 of the Hot Spring Act as part of the policy of securing a hot spring hole for the joint supply of hot spring water from the plaintiff 3 square meters in the land of this case (the records show that the land of this case was designated as a hot spring district as of September 30, 1981) and added the monthly rent for the above portion of land to the above portion of the land with no title to the other plaintiffs 2, 1982.

However, according to the records, the main data considered by the court below in calculating the above rent (amount of damage) shows the result of the appraisal of rent by the non-party appraiser of the court below and the data on the monthly fee for collecting and supplying hot spring water. However, even based on the data, it is unclear how the monthly water collection expenses, public charges, etc. in the judgment are calculated, and there is no reasonable explanation or basis as to how the amount calculated according to the same method as at the time of original adjudication would cause damage to the plaintiffs for any reason.

The court below calculated a complicated number of damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the illegal possession of the defendant of this case under the premise that the damages are equivalent to the rent for the land and the amount of the rent is calculated, but it is not clear that the relationship with the rent is not clear. The court below's measures to calculate the amount of damages are eventually improper, or there is an error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of damages, etc.,

Next, as to the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2, the court below's decision is clear that the defendant dismissed all the claim of this case against the above plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's appeal against the above plaintiff against the above plaintiff is unlawful as it cannot correct the deficiency.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant except for the plaintiff 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff 2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)