Plaintiff

The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

March 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition that the Defendant decided on July 21, 2010 to KRW 7,000,000 per square meter on July 21, 2010 on a 37 square meter in Dongjak-gu Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) and a 45 square meter in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 3 omitted) on January 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Nonparty 3, the Plaintiff, owns a large area of 37 square meters in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 2 omitted), and the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3, etc. own a large of 45 square meters in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 3 omitted), and the land ( Address 2 omitted), Dongjak-gu, Seoul (hereinafter address 2 omitted), and the Plaintiff is one of the co-owners of the buildings on each of the instant land.

B. On January 1, 2010, the Defendant selected the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land (No. 8,100,000 won per square meter as of January 1, 2010) located in the part adjacent to each of the instant land as a comparative standard and publicly announced the officially assessed individual land price for each of the instant land in 2010 as KRW 6,80,000 per square meter by applying the characteristics, etc. of the relevant land, and the Plaintiff filed an objection against the said decision.

C. After deliberation by the Dongjak-gu Real Estate Evaluation Committee, on July 21, 2010, the Defendant re-determined the officially assessed individual land price of each of the instant land at KRW 7,00,000 per square meter adjusted higher than the initial amount, and publicly announced the same (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant considered the regional characteristics and the situation such as the balance with the land at Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 4 omitted) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's 1 (including each number), 2, Eul's 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is not only the amount substantially lower than the officially assessed individual land price of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 5 omitted), (No. 6 omitted), and (No. 7 omitted), located on the part adjacent to each of the instant lands, but also the land in the Seoul Dongjak-gu (No. 4 omitted) that is the quasi-residential area, while the land in each of the instant lands is mixed with the Class 2 general residential area and the quasi-residential area, which is the neighboring land, the land in Dongjak-gu (No. 4 omitted) shall not be subject to consideration

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of all the following circumstances that can be recognized by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it cannot be deemed that there exists any defect in the disposition of this case by the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(1) In light of the fact that there are differences in the characteristics and appraisal factors of each land, and the final individual land price can be determined by reducing or adjusting the land price by taking such factors into account in the process of deliberation and adjustment according to the purpose of land price calculation, barring any special circumstance, the individual land price of the land in question is relatively high or low compared with the individual land price of the adjoining land, and the determination of the individual land price cannot be asserted as unlawful and unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19262 delivered on December 24, 1993, etc.).

(2) The land in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 5 omitted), (No. 6 omitted), and (No. 7 omitted) located in the part adjacent to each of the instant lands differs from the commercial zone formed around, the number of U.S. population and the utility of the land. Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to assess the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land and each of the instant land at the same level cannot be said to be a mistake in itself.

(3) Under the urban planning, each of the instant lands is a quasi-residential area, and the land in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 4 omitted) is registered respectively as a Class 2 general residential area and quasi-residential area. However, the ratio of the adjoining land which accounts for Class 2 general residential area among the adjoining land is extremely low among the total area.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)