The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In light of the purport of the whole pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall render a judgment of the fact-finding with free conviction in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, so long as it does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the value judgment and fact-finding belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court, and the

(2) The court below acknowledged that the land of this case occurred between around 1966 and February 11, 1971, and acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence as to the plaintiff's assertion that the land of this case occurred on August 19, 1972 or on March 7, 1975, and determined otherwise that the former River Act, which was wholly amended by Act No. 2292 of January 19, 1971, enforced, should assess the compensation for losses for the land of this case in consideration of the reservoir, which is the situation of the use of the land of this case as of July 20, 1971.

The grounds of appeal are purporting to dispute the fact-finding of the lower court on the time when the land was discovered, and the content of the substantive assertion is nothing more than an error in the selection and value of evidence belonging to the lower court’s free evaluation.

In addition, even after examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by either violating the principle of evidence trial or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.