In the revised part of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the 8th and the last part of the 10th written judgment is as described below in the next written box.

C) As a result of the appraiser’s appraisal, unless there exists a significant error, such as the method of appraisal, etc. that is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009). According to the result of the appraiser A’s entrustment to an appraiser A of this court, when the land was transferred to a project district as of May 31, 2013, the appraised value of the remaining land of this case before being transferred to the project district is KRW 1,071,258,00, and the appraised value of the remaining land of this case on the premise that the land of this case was available for its original purpose after being incorporated into a project district is KRW 302,461,00, such difference is KRW 768,797,000 (hereinafter “court appraisal result”).

Meanwhile, according to the result of the appraisal commission with respect to the above appraiser by the court of first instance, the appraisal value of the remaining land of this case before being transferred to the project district is KRW 1,078,098,00, and the appraisal value of the remaining land of this case which is assessed on the premise that the land of this case is available for the original purpose after being incorporated into the project district after being incorporated into the project district, shall be KRW 305,368,00, and the difference shall be KRW 772,730,000, and the above appraisal commission result is assessed on the premise that part of the remaining land of this case is a green green belt, so it shall not be adopted.

In light of the above facts, the above court’s appraisal added the evidence No. 5, the fact-finding results to the appraiser A of the court of first instance, and the overall purport of the pleading.