The defendant shall receive KRW 2,887,095,090 from the plaintiff.

(However, the purport of the claim is not modified). As to the validity of the appraisal result of the first instance court asserted by the defendant as the grounds for appeal, the decision is added to the following paragraph 2, and the plaintiff withdraws his claim regarding the deduction of the lease deposit, the decision is made in accordance with the following Paragraph 3.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as above. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. For the following reasons, the Defendant asserts that the result of the first and second appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance court cannot be trustable all for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant erred by misapprehending the judgment on the difference between the standard land values of the instant case and the difference between the comparative land values and the comparative transaction cases during the process of the comparison of individual factors under the Standard Act, and the judgment on the difference between the standard land values and the comparative transaction cases in the process of other correction of factors in D land and G land (the same as the standard in the first and second appraisal) selected by the appraiser of the first instance court as the comparative standard land ( January 1, 2016).

B. Determination 1 is an objective transaction price of land or building at the time when the right to claim sale under a sale claim under the Urban Improvement Act was exercised.