1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the part added as set forth in paragraph (2) below.

(In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, the Defendant’s evidence Nos. 12 through 27 submitted by the court of first instance as well as the statement of evidence Nos. 12 through 27, the court of first instance’s findings of fact and its determination are justifiable). 2.

A. The Defendant’s motion for appraisal of this case is a false appraisal that does not undergo the adjustment of the city acid under Articles 12 and 13 of the Rules on Appraisal and Evaluation, and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize the market price of the instant real estate based on the result of the instant commission for appraisal.

(b)as shown in the relevant regulations attached hereto;

C. (1) In the case where a court requires special knowledge and experience in order to determine certain matters, the court has used such knowledge and experience as a supplementary means for the determination. Thus, in the lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, there are several different appraisals contrary to the same facts, and in the absence of any evidence to find any error, the court has employed any one of the appraisal or recognized any fact based on only one of the appraisal.

Even if it does not go against the logical or empirical rules, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu14919, Sept. 5, 1995; 2005Da11954, Feb. 28, 2008). In addition, even if one of the appraisal for the assessment of compensation for losses is an illegal cause, the appraisal result is illegal; however, even if the appraisal is illegal, the court may extract the portion which is not illegal from the appraisal content and take into account in its judgment.

Supreme Court Decision 200Do448 delivered on August 24, 1999