1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "in writing," from No. 3, No. 3, 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, add "in writing, refusal of renewal" to "in 3, rejection of renewal" to "not renewed"; "in 6, 1-1 of the evidence No. 1" to "in 7-2 (the same as the evidence No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 7-2)" and witness D's testimony" to "in 7-2 (the same as the evidence No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-1 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for additional determination as set forth in the following 2.

2. The part of the additional judgment (the plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the counterclaim) (1) The plaintiff alleged that the expenses incurred by the defendant to improve the possession of two toilets installed in the dispute building of this case, two shower facilities, three shower facilities, three tent facilities, and outdoor entrances, etc., but in full view of the above facts, the expenses incurred in the above facilities are considered as beneficial expenses because the expenses increased the objective value of the dispute building of this case, the use of which was changed to the residents' sports facilities, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the remaining value of the instant facility should be assessed in accordance with the Corporate Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, or the Value-Added Tax Act. In such a case, the remaining value should be zero won, despite the fact that the appraisal result in the instant case is calculated at least 50% after the lapse of 10 years from the installation of the instant facility, and that the appraisal result

The appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless the appraisal method violates the rule of experience or is unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da103199, Jan. 24, 2013; 2013Da92866, Dec. 11, 2014); and the appraiser C’s appraisal result.