1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, acquired statutory superficies for the use of the instant building with respect to the instant occupied portion, and that the land rent that the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant occupied portion, is reasonable in terms of the amount equivalent to the rent for the instant occupied portion. In full view of the fact-finding results with respect to the appraiser F of the first instance trial and the overall purport of the pleadings, the lower court recognized the rent for the instant occupied portion as KRW 3,833,70 per annum during the period from February 24, 2015 to March 24, 2017, and recognized that the rent for the instant occupied portion as KRW 3,83,70 per annum and the subsequent rent may be ratified as the same amount. Accordingly, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s rent for the instant occupied portion was KRW 319,475 won per month (=3,833,70

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. According to the appraisal report of April 14, 2017 by the above appraiser F attached to the inquiry report of fact to the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the fact that the amount equivalent to the annual rent as the land for housing from February 24, 2015 to March 24, 2017 is calculated as KRW 3,833,700 is recognized.

However, according to evidence duly admitted such as the above appraisal report, the above 3,83,70 won is the aggregate of the actual rent for each period from February 24, 2015 to March 24, 2017, and its details are 27,210 won (=(52,250,000 x 0.35:12) x 5/28), 1,523,90 won for 20 to December 12, 2015 (i.e., 152, 390 won for 152,390 to March 24, 2017) x 207 x 3,570 won for 205 to 27:3,50 won for 207,390 won for x 152,390 won for each month x 1,846,305 won for each period x 25 months or more for 2013 months x 5 months

In light of these facts, since the above 3,833,70 won is the sum of the rent for 25 months from February 24, 2015 to March 24, 2017, the calculation of the annual rent for a house from February 24, 2015 to March 24, 2017 under the above appraisal report is made by mistake. It is obvious that the amount equivalent to the annual rent is calculated as 3,833,700 won. Therefore, it is correct to interpret the portion as the "total amount equivalent to the annual rent" regardless of its description, and it is not interpreted as the "amount equivalent to the annual rent."

B. Nevertheless, the lower court construed KRW 3,833,70 on the said appraisal report as “amount equivalent to the annual rent for the period from February 24, 2015 to March 24, 2017” and calculated KRW 3,833,700 as KRW 319,475 per month by dividing the land rent that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff by 12 months. In so doing, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Gin-soo