1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The appeal by the defendant among the costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the parties add “additional Judgment” as to the assertion that is emphasized by the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion and judgment are that the land rent is excessively excessive in light of the location, use status, etc. of the above land and the building owned by the defendant.

The appraiser’s appraisal result shall be respected unless the appraisal method, etc. is against the rule of experience or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, Jan. 12, 2012) and circumstances to deem that the appraisal method, etc. is against any rule of experience or unreasonable cannot be found.

In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the officially assessed individual land price as of May 30, 2014 is KRW 5,923,00 per square meter, and the value of the land assessed in the voluntary auction procedure for the above land can be recognized as the fact that the value of the land assessed in the voluntary auction procedure for the above land constitutes KRW 98,00,00,000, it is difficult to evaluate that even if the land rent for the portion of "B" was calculated as KRW 1,244,04 per month, it is unreasonable to evaluate that it is

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment are also deemed to possess the land of "C" and "D". Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 261,904 per month with land rent for each of the above land.

In light of the results of the survey and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation of the first instance trial, each of the parts “C,” “D,” and “D,” is deemed a fact that the use of the land is restricted due to a building owned by the Defendant, but such circumstance alone.