The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the outcome of the examination of evidence, the court shall render a determination of facts with free conviction in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the principle of logic and experience, taking into account the social justice and equity, so long as it does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the determination of the value of evidence and the fact-finding belong to the discretion of

(Articles 202 and 432 of the Civil Procedure Act).

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and, on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, found that (1) the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor allowed the Plaintiff to use the instant horse free of charge until January 31, 1990 in accordance with the instant policy, and again allowed the Plaintiff to continue to use the instant horse free of charge until the establishment of the comprehensive use plan regarding the Posular People Sports Park around June 1989, but it is recognized that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have occupied the instant horse horse free of charge with the Plaintiff’s permission to use and make a free use after around June 199; (2) on the other hand, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant entrusted the management of the instant horse club to the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff was entrusted with

Even if the Plaintiff cited, there is no obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s usage fee.

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff actually contributed the instant horse by bearing the instant construction cost pursuant to the instant agreement concluded with Seoul Special Metropolitan City was insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay user fees or to fully exempt the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay user fees, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no obligation to pay user fees for the use of and benefit from

The part of the ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding of the court below is substantially free evaluation of evidence.