1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Article 95(5) of the Income Tax Act is deemed to be Article 97(5) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 46(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is deemed to be “Article 49(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act” of the 6th part of the judgment of the first instance.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning “A development project is being designated as a G house reconstruction improvement zone and is in progress,” and the part concerning “A development project has been designated as a G house reconstruction improvement zone.” The plaintiff at the last part of the 8th 19th 19th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 19 that the purchaser of the instant land did not have any possibility of purchasing the instant land at a price higher than the objective exchange value since G was designated as a rearrangement zone. However, according to the evidence Nos. 10 and No. 11-1th 1, the above G was designated as a rearrangement zone in order to promote efficient improvement of old and inferior structures and reasonable expansion and improvement of infrastructure due to poor residential environment such as road and park, etc., the purchaser of the instant land cannot be seen as the aforementioned situation.