1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.

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)the fifth page “land” in Part 8 shall be regarded as “land”;

(b)each “appraisal” in the last sentence of the 7th, 11th, 7, and 19 shall be regarded as “appraisal of the first instance trial”;

(c)under the table of the 9 upper end, each “this Court” in accordance with the table of the 11st, 7, 8, 19, 20, 12 first, 12, 15 first, 10, and 16 second, shall be deemed to read “the first instance court”.

Each "Witness" of the 6th 11th 6 and 18 acts shall be regarded as "Expert Witness of the First Instance".

(e)each “fact-finding inquiry results” in accordance with Articles 11(9), 21, 15(11), 16(5), and 6(6) of the 11st instance is understood as “the results of fact-finding inquiries with respect to AE of the appraiser in the first instance trial”;

(f)each “survey Appraiser” in Part 12, 19, 13, and 8, shall be regarded as “court Survey Appraiser”;

(g) eliminate “influence” in Part 17 of the 18th page.

(h) add subsequent to the "C" in Part 5 of the 18th page:

"On the other hand, the results of the complementary appraisal by the appraiser AF of the trial court (hereinafter referred to as the "the supplemental appraisal of the trial court")"

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, among the ditches of this case, the court’s survey appraiser assessed as “ditch” [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] that “reasonable amount of compensation (area)” as “each portion exceeding the area of the part” was separately calculated. However, such appraisal result is difficult to adopt as it is because it is difficult to adopt the compensation amount in the case of assessment as it is, as it is, for only a part of the parcel of this case, different from the Defendant’s purport of the application for appraisal (which is different from the calculation of compensation amount in the case of assessment).