2. The part of the appeal by Plaintiff A out of the costs of appeal is assessed against Plaintiff A.

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

The decision of the court of first instance is the same as that of the decision of the court of first instance, except for the modification as stated in paragraph 2 and the addition of the decision in the next trial as stated in paragraph 2.

B. Part 1) The amendment of the judgment of the first instance court is to read the “instant F land” as the “instant F land”; and each “this court” of the first instance court of first instance as the “court of first instance” in the 3rd and 12th and 3rd. (2) The Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of the instant land” in the 6 and 7th judgment of the first instance court of first instance as the “Defendant’s acquisition of ownership of the instant building on July 8, 2013”; and the deletion of the “before the completion date of delivery of the instant land” in the 8th sentence as the “date of the completion of delivery of the instant land.”

3. On the 12th part of the judgment of the first instance court, the “not later than the completion date of removal of the building of this case” is deemed to be the “not later than the completion date of delivery of the building of this case” and the “the removal of the building of this case” of the 11st part is deemed to be the “delivery of the land

2. Determination on addition

A. As seen in the above cited part of the judgment as to the grounds for appeal by Plaintiff A, it is difficult to view that the land of this case also has the effect of statutory superficies under the customary law, and this is the same even if Plaintiff A submitted the evidence No. 16 of this case, which is additionally submitted by Plaintiff A in the trial, or the result of the survey appraisal of appraiser Q of this court upon Plaintiff A’s application, and thus, Plaintiff A’s assertion on the grounds for appeal that is contrary thereto

In reference, it is recognized that there is a method of opening a entrance at a different place from the land of this case and allowing the use of the parking lot part among the land of this case, without passing through the land of this case, if the purport of the entire pleading is seen in the statement of evidence No. 21 submitted by the defendant in the trial of this case

Furthermore, the Defendant’s instant F. after September 10, 2017.