The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the expenses incurred by the Defendant’s vicarious execution pursuant to Article 41 subparag. 1 of the former Mountainous Districts Management Act (amended by Act No. 11352, Feb. 22, 2012; hereinafter the same) do not constitute “expenses incurred by vicarious execution” under Article 6(2) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and that the claims acquired by the Defendant’s vicarious performance constituted general claims.

There is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding interpretation and application of the former Mountainous Districts Management Act and Administrative Vicarious Execution Act or subrogation, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

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.