Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and such revocation shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment as to the cause of the claim is as follows, except for cases where the reasoning of this court is written or deleted as follows. 1. The judgment as to the cause of the claim is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the result of appraiser E's appraisal" in Part 13 of the judgment of the second instance court shall be "the result of appraisal of appraiser E".

Part II of the judgment of the first instance is "B" 14/49 of the portion of the first instance judgment "21/49 of the 17th action "B".

In the first instance judgment, “H engaged in a wood manufacturing and processing business, etc. on the land adjacent to the instant land” with the trade name “H,” located on the ground adjacent to the instant land, i,127 square meters, J factory site 1,106 square meters, and 827 square meters in the K factory site (hereinafter the instant land is indicated only once on the spot),” “H engaged in a wood manufacturing and processing business with the trade name of “H,” while engaging in a wood manufacturing and processing business on the instant land, such as loading timber, etc. on the instant land or parking a vehicle.”

Part of the first instance judgment, between 14 and 6, shall be deleted.

Part V to 15 to 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dried as follows:

“Unless there exist special circumstances, the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff for payment of 5% interest per annum from February 1, 2008 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and from February 14, 2018, the date following the delivery date of the original original copy of the payment order of this case against the Plaintiff, which was clearly recorded, that the Defendant raised a dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform. In July 12, 2019, the Plaintiff claimed for payment of part of the claim (damage for delay) against the foregoing unjust enrichment by the Defendant from February 1, 2008 to the date of complete payment, and from the next day to the date of complete payment. Thus, the Defendant’s claim (damage for delay) is dismissed. Thus, the existence and scope of the obligation to perform is limited until the date of the first judgment.