1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant selected the comparative standard site as C’s gas station site of 1,282 square meters (hereinafter “instant comparative standard site”) with respect to the land of 19,693 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which is owned by the Plaintiff, on May 31, 2012 (based on January 1, 2012), and publicly announced the officially assessed land price of 2,760,000/ square meters (referring to the price of land per square meter), compared to the characteristics of the instant land investigated, on May 31, 2012.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to revoke the instant disposition on the following grounds.

(1) Since the surrounding land is a factory zone and its actual use and utility value are not considered commercial area, the land in this case is immediately adjacent to the land in this case and its use are industrial, and its category is similar to the comparison standard of the land in this case, although the land in this case is more appropriate than 10,232 square meters from the compared standard of the land in this case, the defendant mistakenly selected the standard of comparison of the land in this case where there is a distance of 300 meters from the land in this case and its surrounding environment is a route street zone, and its surrounding land is commercial and its use is entirely different from its surrounding land, so the disposition in this case is unlawful

(2) Although the instant land is located in various characteristics compared to the comparison standard of the instant land, such as where only a part of the entire area is actually used as a driving school, it is unlawful to determine the officially assessed individual land price by applying a rate of 1.00 without considering it.

(3) The officially assessed individual land price of the instant land in 2011 was KRW 2,010,000, but the Defendant determined the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land in 2012 as KRW 37.3% or more, and the officially assessed individual land price of the neighboring land in 2012.