The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the remaining business expenses and the loss of benefit from time, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in its reasoning

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of special terms

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion as to the credibility of the appraisal result, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the adoption of appraisal results, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court asserted by the Defendants that the adjustment of the settlement cost pursuant to the so-called “devaluation rate” based on Article 46(1) of the Defense Acquisition Program Act, Article 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 70(3) and 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contracts Act”) is lawful, on the grounds that the adjustment of the settlement cost is lawful.