1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court's explanation of this case is as follows: "The result of appraisal by the appraiser G" of the first instance court No. 6, No. 20, No. 8, No. 14, and No. 10, No. 15 of the 15 of the 1st instance judgment "the result of appraisal by the appraiser G" of the 7th and No. 18 of the 19 of the 7th 19 of the 7th 7th 19 of the 7th 7th 7th 19 of the 7th 7th 7th "the witness H's testimony, the representative director's I newspapers, and the result of appraisal by the appraiser G" of the 9th 9th 12 of the 9th 11 of the 1st 11 of the 19th 11 of the 11 of the 19th 2nd 40 of the 10th 10th 11 of the 191th 2 of the 2th 201.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant concluded a free contract for the instant construction cost of KRW 72,430,00,00, and among which, the construction cost related to the instant E is KRW 59,792,632, at least KRW 49,457,907,07. However, the first instance appraiser G applied the reasonable construction cost necessary for the re-establishment of the infrastructure among the instant E to the construction cost of KRW 75,231,90,00 to the appropriate successful bid rate of KRW 87.75,00,00,000, which is higher than the construction cost related to the instant E.

B. In light of the determination, the appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless there exist significant errors, such as the appraisal method, etc. is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, Jan. 12, 2012). The entry of the evidence No. 15, and the video of the evidence No. 16, No. 15, and the video of the evidence No. 16, etc. No. 59,792,632, with respect to the instant E, at least 49.