beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion in the cited part is not significantly different from the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance trial as to whether the Plaintiff can exercise exclusive right to use and benefit from the pertinent part. The judgment of this court is also identical to the judgment of the first instance court.
Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the entry of the first instance court's reasoning, except for partial dismissal or addition among the written reasoning of the first instance court's decision as follows. Therefore, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 4 5 and 7 of the title "the land of this case" shall be re-established to "the corresponding part of this case"
A. According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duties of road maintenance and repair.
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff did not recognize that the pertinent part is being used as a current state for the construction facilities of the rolling stock repair team, and therefore, the Plaintiff did not receive any investment in kind from the State with knowledge that the pertinent part is being used as a current state, and that the Plaintiff does not limit the Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use and benefit from the pertinent part.
However, there is no proof of objective facts that can support the plaintiff's assertion or the prosecution.
In addition, the plaintiff argues that the defendants' waiver of exclusive use rights to the corresponding part of the case is abuse of defense rights.
Although Defendant Daejeon did not dispute between the parties that there was no land compensation for the corresponding part of this case, this is due to the failure to meet the requirements, and the restriction on exclusive use and profit-making rights for the corresponding part of this case was formed from the time when the State owned.