The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, thereby citing this case as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that this court’s additional determination by this court is a separate concept that is separate from “public property (administrative property)” under Article 25(1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as the grounds for appeal, and that each of the instant land is a public property, even if it is not provided for public use, it cannot be deemed a public facility. Meanwhile, it is unreasonable to determine whether each of the instant land falls under public property based on the result of the land survey project during the Japanese occupation occupation period. Accordingly, each of the instant land cannot be deemed as a public facility.”

The above assertion made by the defendant in this court is not different from the contents of the defendant's assertion in the first instance court. However, the first instance court's decision rejecting the defendant's assertion is justified upon examining both the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the evidence submitted in this court (Evidence A 23, 24, 25).

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the plaintiff's claim except for partial damages for delay, is justifiable. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.