1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The reasons for this part of the ruling are as follows, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a partial modification as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

Section 4 of the 3rd Party " 807,660,424 Won" shall be modified as follows:

Article 815,511,103 won (the amount of compensation for losses arising from appraisal as at the time of the procedure for the preservation of evidence was 807,660,424 won, but the amount of compensation for losses was increased to 815,51,103 won as a result of the request for supplementation of appraisal to the above appraiser by this court) was dismissed to "the appraiser of the court (the merits)" in Article 8 of the 3rd "the appraiser of the court (the merits)".

Part 3 Action 12 "The appraisal results of Eul evidence and appraiser H" shall be changed as follows:

The plaintiff asserts that the evidence in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of "B" is inadmissible as a result of his/her appraisal because H was not appointed as an appraiser in the first instance trial even though H was appointed as an appraiser.

However, even in a case where the court has designated an appraiser and ordered him to take an oath by mistake, and the result of the appraisal by the appraiser becomes inadmissible as evidence, even in a case where the appraisal by the appraiser becomes inadmissible as evidence, a document in which the result of appraisal prepared by the appraiser is presented as evidence by the party concerned, and where the court deems it reasonable, it may use it as evidence for fact recognition (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da77848, May 25, 2006, etc.). Although H did not seem to have taken an oath by the court of first instance, the appraisal statement prepared by him as evidence was submitted by this court (Evidence B No. 5) and it is reasonable to view it as evidence, since the appraisal statement prepared by him as evidence is deemed reasonable as subsequent.

The results of each appraisal conducted by the first instance court (Procedure for the Preservation of Evidence) appraiser F and G, with respect to F of this Court.