The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s legal superficies defense based on the sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant and H had sectionally owned co-ownership relation to the instant land.

The Defendant’s argument in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the lower court’s determination of evidence and the fact-finding based thereon.

The evaluation of evidence, which is a premise of fact finding and its premise, is within the discretionary power of a fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

In examining the record, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of reasonable free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on sectionally owned co-ownership.

The Supreme Court's decision cited in the grounds of appeal is different from this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.