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 reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the following matters. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Part 3. The following shall be added to the next activity of Part 16:

A person shall be appointed.

D. On August 22, 2012, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and requested to the Tax Tribunal for an inquiry on August 22, 2012, but was dismissed on June 21, 2013.

[Attachment A] No. 3 and 4 to the ground for recognition

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The court's explanation on this part of the plaintiff's assertion is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The reason why the court should explain this part of the relevant statutes is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “the relevant statutes added in the trial” as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the legitimacy of the instant one disposition is to delete the part of the first instance court’s 6th and 15th and 9th and 4th and the corresponding part of the first instance court’s decision, except for the addition of the following, are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. As such, this part is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of

“2) Around January 2008, the Plaintiff started the construction of the extension of the official distance facility of this case and the remodeling of the intangible cultural heritage successor of this case, and completed the registration of initial ownership on December 12, 2008 with respect to the instant official distance facility of this case on October 27, 2008.

The official distance facilities of this case are as follows.