beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for adding a judgment on the defendant's additional assertion in the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
C. Foods
(a)each “this Court” in the fourth, sixth, sixth, 1, 15, 16, and seventh, shall be regarded as “the first instance court”;
(b)each “Appraiser” in accordance with Forms 4, 19, 5, 16, 17, 6-4, and 16, shall be regarded as “expert in the first instance trial”;
2. The portion to be determined additionally in the trial;
A. The part of the ditch part of the Defendant’s assertion is a slope corresponding to the former U U bank, etc., where it is practically impossible to cultivate crops in light of the topography, geographical features, geographical features, etc. of the pertinent land. Since the Plaintiffs do not actually cultivate crops, the utilization status of the ditch part should be evaluated as “sult land.”
B. In light of the following circumstances, the part of the ditch of this case, which constitutes a slope of the former U-Waterway and the land on which farming was not performed, is deemed to exist in lieu of the aforementioned facts and the evidence as seen earlier, and the purport of Gap evidence as well as Gap evidence as well as the purport of the whole pleadings. However, the part of the ditch of this case is not required to change the form and quality of the land, such as cutting and filling-up, etc. for cultivation because the part of the ditch of this case is completely closed and dry, and the land category of this case falls under "the whole land or the answer" and is usable at any time as land category. Considering such land status, land category in the public register, surrounding land use situation, surrounding environment, etc., it seems reasonable to use the ditch of this case as "the whole land category or the answer", which is the land category of the public register, and the situation where farming