1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The annexed list of judgments of the court of first instance shall be examined;

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance is written or added as set forth in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the Defendant’s new argument in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following paragraph (3). Therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2.On June 9, 1997, after purchasing each share and purchasing "B" share in Section 12 of Part II of the judgment of the first instance.

A. According to the third decision of the first instance court, “B” land and buildings on the above land” under paragraph 4 below.

C. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone that “B” installed each of the instant sewerage systems only with the fact that C installed each of the instant sewerage systems, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant is sufficient to read “B” in the video of No. 8 of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance judgment, as well as in the statements and images of No. 8 and 9, “B” in the video of No. 4 of the Defendant’s second instance judgment

A. In addition, the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s seventh instance judgment’s “Insufficient,” and then, it appears that the Defendant’s sewage discharged through each of the instant sewerage systems is drained out to the underground surface of the instant land without draining the sewage into a public sewerage system. This appears to fall under a significant change in the land use condition that the Plaintiff could not have anticipated at the time of the preparation of the instant consent.” The second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s judgment “only the Defendant’s assertion” to read “the Defendant’

every 3. Additional Judgment

A. On May 31, 1997, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff is entitled to use the land of this case for the installation of each of the instant sewerage systems (hereinafter “instant right”) without compensation by preparing and delivering the instant written consent to C around May 31, 1997.