The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s acquisition of ownership of the instant land was based on a purchase decision under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property regardless of the validity of the disposition of re-distribution of the instant land, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the disposition of re-distribution of the instant land and the loss

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and they did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation.

2. Examining the grounds of appeal No. 2 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm that the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that there was no specific evidence of assertion as to the amount equivalent to the purchase price claimed by the Plaintiff as damages, and there was no error of violating the duty of explanation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.