1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including attached Forms 1 and 4) is as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

The first instance court in the first instance court in the first instance judgment of the sixth-party 1, "This Court" in the second instance court in the second instance judgment, and the first instance court in the same part 16 as "the first instance court", respectively.

Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is from the 2th to the 17th eth eth.g. as follows.

The remaining provisions except Article 1, 2, 5, and 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Property Act, are not directly related to the “calculated” of the instant site based on the instant permission for occupation and use under Article 14(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Railroad Business Act. Thus, it is obvious that the provision that cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the occupation and use fees for railroad facilities pursuant to Article 14(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Railroad Business Act.

In addition, Article 42(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act provides that the sale price of the relevant property shall be the amount calculated by subtracting the amount equivalent to the improvement cost from the price in the improved condition at the time of sale, if the property is sold to a person who opened, reclaimed, or afforested the general property pursuant to Article 45 of the State Property Act, or who has occupied or improved the relevant property for other justifiable reasons. This seems to be a provision to prevent a double burden of the amount equivalent to the improvement cost already paid if the sale price is determined at the market price at the time of sale, even if the person who improved the general property acquires the relevant property

In this regard, the cost of reinforcement of underground facilities claimed by the Plaintiff as improvement costs is the cost of construction of complex facilities Dong and public business facilities Dong on the site of the instant underground tracks, and the cost of improvement of the instant site itself.