손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the rejection of the part on “3. judgment” with the reasoning of the first instance judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this part of the second instance judgment - the second instance judgment’s reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
A. First, we examine whether the Defendant knew or could have known that the E and F land fell under the military facility protection zone at the time of issuing the instant confirmation document.
1) Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 40 through 45 (including the number of branch offices) and the judgment of the court below and the corresponding Army KK ( Q. hereinafter referred to as the "K unit") shall be limited to the K unit.
According to the results of the fact-finding on the Head of the Office, the defendant sent to the Head of the K unit on September 4, 1996 a public notice to identify the status of military installations protection zones and military personnel statistics in the jurisdiction for the calculation of the general subsidy of 97 years and the status of military personnel statistics in the military installations protection zone and the military personnel statistics in the state, and the K unit chief sent a public notice
6. The defendant sent a letter to the defendant stating that the status of the area of the protection zone of the military facility and the state of military personnel's statistics attached thereto; 2) on June 18, 1997, the captain of the military unit sent a letter to the defendant stating that "the request for cadastral map by unit of the administrative district of the military installation protection zone" was made; and on November 14, 2006, "the current status of lot number and the lot number list are requested to maintain the accurate lot number map and the list by lot number in the military installation protection zone"; 3 on April 10, 202, the commander of the military unit sent a letter to the defendant on April 10, 202, stating that "the defendant is a military installation protection zone, and M is conducting construction without consultation or consultation with the first plan, which is being carried out by the defendant." In relation to this, the document of the military unit stated that "the relevant location map and the photograph attached to the above public document" and the land attached to the defendant at that time.