All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant (the intermediate confirmation Defendant, hereinafter “Defendant”)’s grounds of appeal

A. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff owned double-production machinery installed in the two factories of this case, based on the following facts: (a) the village council and its subordinate organizations consisting of village residents residing in the first day of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Si of Gu; (b) the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff in intermediate confirmation; hereinafter “Plaintiff”); and (c) the Plaintiff purchased and installed double-production machinery necessary for the operation of the two factories of this case with subsidies, etc.; and (d) the Plaintiff owned double-production machinery installed in the two factories of this case.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the attribution of ownership of double-production machinery in the double-production plant of this case, or in violation of the rules of evidence.

B. Where it is acknowledged that the occurrence of property damage has occurred in a claim for damages due to a tort and it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case even though the maximum amount was set, the court may determine the amount of damage in proximate causal relation by comprehensively taking into account all relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties, which have been revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the tort and the occurrence of property damage, the nature of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da48508, Nov. 24, 2005). The lower court has the characteristics of manufacturing two parts of manufacturing machinery normally in line with the size of a factory.