1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Acknowledgement and conclusion of the first instance judgment

A. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues) is sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, the reasoning of this Court is as follows.

B. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be quoted as it is reasonable within the same scope as the plaintiff's claim of this case No. 18 to 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this court, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff

A. On the grounds delineated in the summary of the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous and unreasonable to recognize the Plaintiff’s amount of damages, and thus, the Plaintiff’s amount of damages (120 million won and damages for delay) should be accepted.

1) Comprehensively considering the following circumstances as to whether statutory superficies under the customary law is recognized, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government S land (hereinafter “instant land”) is deemed to be the instant land.

Each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each building of this case”).

) Since statutory superficies under customary law has been established on the part of the site, such circumstances should have been reflected in calculating the value of each of the buildings of this case. Nevertheless, the first instance judgment did not reflect this. A)