1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s additional argument in the trial, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment in the first instance. As such, it can be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The court of first instance assessed the rent upon the Plaintiff’s application, and the rent based on the result of the appraisal of the rent is not different from the rent of legal superficies, and thus, the court of first instance rendered a decision on the rent of the court of first instance on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay rent for not less than two years. Thus, the court of first instance seeks to extinguish the superficies on the ground that the Defendant did

B. In the case of statutory superficies, there was an agreement between the parties on land rent.

If there is no evidence that the rent has been determined by the court, even if the statutory superficies holder did not pay the rent, the payment of the rent shall not be deemed to have been delayed. Therefore, the landowner's claim to extinguish the superficies on the ground that the statutory superficies holder did not pay the rent for more than two years is groundless.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da17142 delivered on March 13, 2001, etc.). There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the parties on the rent in this case. The court’s decision on the rent in question is based on the party’s claim (proviso of Article 366 of the Civil Act). The court’s acceptance of the party’s application for appraisal of rent in advance and the appraisal of rent in advance cannot be deemed to have decided the rent in advance. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the extinction of superficies on the ground of payment in advance is without merit

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.