All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to become an appurtenant facility of a mond farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Feb. 22, 1994, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Farmland Act), it shall be applicable to branches, concentrations, waterways, etc. directly necessary for the management of a specific mond farmland of a single management entity.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion that each of the instant lands was purchased, acquired, and distributed to the Defendant at the time of distributing farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge such assertion. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on facilities attached to the steel farmland, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.