1. Defendant Republic of Korea’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by Defendant Republic of Korea.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "Defendant Changwon-si" in Chapter 13 of the judgment of the first instance court in Section 13 in Section 13 in Section 1 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: "Defendant Changwon-si" (referring to the original city of the first instance at that time and the convenience city of the first instance, and the establishment of the original city of the first instance at that time by combining the original city of the first instance in accordance with the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Establishment of and Support for Changwon-si at that time, and the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Establishment of and Support for Changwon-si at that time and around July 1, 2010)"; "the compensation contract" in Section 1 of Section 4 in Section 4 shall be deemed as "the compensation contract"; and it is identical to the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment as described in paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

A. Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that this case’s state-owned land is not a party to the sales contract, and that it does not bear warranty liability.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole by comprehensively taking account of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as evidence, the defendant Changwon-si Mayor was deemed to have concluded a sales contract on the state-owned land of this case with the authority to manage and dispose of the state-owned property under the former State Property Act as an agency of the State around December 2008. Thus, the party to the sales contract on the state-owned land of this case is not the defendant Changwon-si but the defendant Republic of Korea. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant Republic of Korea is without merit.

1) According to Article 32(3) of the former State Property Act and Article 33(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, the Minister of Strategy and Finance shall delegate part of the administrative affairs pertaining to the management and disposal of miscellaneous property to the Mayor/Do governor having jurisdiction over the location of the property as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] of the Regulations on Delegation of Administrative Affairs to the Gyeongnam-do shall be subject to