1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the second, third, third, 9, 12, 18, 20, and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows; and (b) the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows; and (c) the grounds of the judgment are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the judgment is added as follows.

(In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of the first instance, the fact-finding and judgment by the court of the first instance is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant). 2. Additional part of the judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that since 2008, the Defendant did not pay rent for the above (b) portion, and that since the Plaintiff did not comply with the Plaintiff’s demand for consultation on rent, the statutory superficies under customary law for the ownership of the above (c) portion was extinguished by the notification of termination of superficies on July 25, 2014, on the ground of delay in payment of rent.

In the case of legal superficies, there was an agreement between the parties on the land rent.

If there is no evidence that the rent was determined by the court or that the statutory superficies was not paid, it cannot be deemed that the payment of the rent was delayed, and with respect to the statutory superficies under customary law, the provisions on superficies under the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis unless there are other special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da17142, Mar. 13, 2001); and the agreement between the original and the Defendant was concluded regarding the rent of the land in the above (B).

In the instant case where no evidence exists to deem that a court’s decision on the rent was rendered, the mere fact that the Plaintiff asserted cannot be deemed to have delayed the payment of the rent. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit without any further determination.

B. The defendant's assertion