1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

1. On July 25, 201, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 782,800 on the part of the State-owned land of this case in the first instance trial. The court of first instance revoked the portion exceeding KRW 738,770 of the main claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim, and dismissed the conjunctive claim.

Accordingly, only the plaintiff filed an appeal against the part against the plaintiff and the conjunctive claim, and the defendant did not file an appeal.

The judgment of the first instance court prior to the remand was modified, and the main claim was wholly accepted, and the conjunctive claim was not judged separately.

Accordingly, on September 17, 2013, the Defendant sought a judgment that “1. original judgment is revoked, 2. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.”

The appeal was filed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the part that accepted the plaintiff's claim in excess of the winning part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, the scope of this Court's trial after remand is limited to KRW 738,770 of the compensation that was destroyed and remanded during the main claim and the ancillary claim.

2. This court's explanation concerning this part of the grounds for appeal is the same as the part concerning the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance, from the 5th to the 5th 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The land category incidental to the instant building is not a parking lot, but is not actually used as a parking lot. There are separate spaces where four vehicles can be parked in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s store in front of the instant building.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is therefore the Plaintiff.