1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except where the following is added to the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, and thus, (b) the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the basic price of the instant land should be assessed as the site on the premise that the instant land was incorporated into a road site around 1940 and was the site immediately before that time.

In a case where the State or a local government has previously occupied the land which is not actually common use for the general public as a road, it shall appraise the land according to the actual conditions of use at the time of its incorporation, without considering the circumstances incorporated into the road (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da35559, Nov. 14, 1997). The fact that the land B, which belongs prior to the division of the land, was divided from the land in E on May 31, 1940, becomes land categoryd as a road is recognized in the above basic facts.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the land of this case was not used for the traffic of the general public, and only before and after the above division and land category change date, it was occupied by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.