1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are all the Defendant, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts added, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to the 9th written judgment of the first instance.

(A) The Defendant asserts to the effect that there is no difference in the method of calculating land rents or rents due to the creation of superficies. However, Article 9(1) of the Urban Railroad Act provides that “Where an urban railroad constructor intends to use the underground portion of another’s land for urban railroad construction business, he shall compensate in consideration of the value of the relevant land, the depth of the underground, and the degree of hindering the use of the land, etc.” Article 10(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Railroad Act provides that “the amount of compensation for the use of the underground portion of the land shall be calculated by multiplying the area where the sectional superficies is established by the reasonable price and the three-dimensional low-level low-level low-level use rate of the relevant land,” and Article 9 of the Ordinance on the Criteria for Compensation for Compensation for the Use of the underground portion for the Construction of the Urban Railroad in Seoul Special Metropolitan City. As seen in the language and text of the above provision, “three-dimensional use low-level rate” is a concept to assess the degree of interference with the use of the relevant land due to urban railroad construction business, the degree of profit-making, i.

Although the defendant asserts that the establishment of divided superficies in this case can be seen as the supply of incidental goods or services related to real estate leasing services, which is the main business of the plaintiffs, the above case.