1. Each appeal filed by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance and the Defendant’s assertion in the trial are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance accepting part of the Plaintiff’s claim is recognized as legitimate even if the submitted evidence is reviewed together with

The reasoning for this case is that the court below's reasoning is as to this case. The "581 square meters" of the first instance court No. 3 2 shall be "581 square meters"; "2.56" of the fifth 19 shall be "2.56"; "2013Na20447" of the fourth 4 shall be "2013Na2047"; "case No. 16 of the same 16" shall be "case"; "this court" of the first 9th 4th 17 and 10th 13th 10 shall be "the first instance court"; "the first 10th 18th m2" of the first 10th m 19th m2, "the alteration of form and quality" of the 13th m 19th m2, "the alteration of form and quality" of the 15th m m204th m2, "the 17th m20th m m2.".

[Plaintiff’s assessment without individually assessing obstacles is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1265, Feb. 10, 198; Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12665, Feb. 10, 1998; Decision 2009Nu12665, Feb. 10, 200). The appraisal of the obstacles in this case merely evaluated the houses, wells, and trees planted on the ground of K site, and I forest and fields, and omitted the storage installed on the above wells underground. The court appraiser did not make a reasonable assessment of the obstacles in this case on the ground that the obstacles in this case had already been removed at the time of the on-site investigation. Thus, the reasonable amount of compensation should be calculated by re-assessment of the obstacles in this case, or by the court ex officio correcting the errors in the appraisal.