2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On May 31, 2017, the Defendant: (a) determined and publicly announced the publicly announced individual land price as of January 1, 2017, as of May 1, 2017, of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 473.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and G 314.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) G 314.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and (c) as of January 1, 2017, the individual land price as of January 1, 201 was each KRW 14,82

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

A, an owner of each of the instant lands, who is the owner of each of the instant 435.49/491 shares, was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant on June 7, 2017, but was dismissed on July 26, 2017.

C. As A died on October 17, 2018, Plaintiff B and the remaining Plaintiffs, who are their spouse, inherited each of the above shares of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 9, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) as a comparative standard for calculating the officially assessed individual land price of each of the instant land, the Defendant is the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Large 627.1 square meters (hereinafter “the standard land of this case”).

Although the above reference land was selected, there was a formation of the calendar rights by located in the vicinity of the subway No. 7 International Station, while each of the land in this case form a business district and a residential area located far away from the station area due to the influence of slope, and does not constitute the reference land for similar price rights. Therefore, the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul High Court Decision 401.2m2m2, which is the reference land for similar price rights within the same specific use area (hereinafter “the reference land for plaintiff in this case”).

(2) In addition, the Defendant assessed each of the instant lands as a complex and assessed the officially assessed individual land price of each of the instant lands as a comparative standard land, and assessed the individual land price of the instant land together. However, the instant land No. 1 is a building, and the instant land No. 2 is used as a parking lot, so the individual land price of each of the instant land should be separately calculated.

3. The above methods.