1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

In the first instance judgment, the part of the first instance judgment, “the instant disposition” in the first instance judgment, “the portion exceeding KRW 764,350,400, which is a reasonable tax amount calculated according to the statutory standard price, by applying the existing usage index corresponding to neighborhood living facilities among the instant disposition 1 and the instant disposition 2, and exceeding KRW 427,928,590,590, which is a reasonable tax amount; the portion exceeding the property tax amount exceeding KRW 1,092,09,330, and the local education tax exceeding KRW 152,870,070,070

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

C. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is as follows. As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. The “legal safety” of No. 9 of the judgment of first instance is deemed to be “legal stability” and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is added to the judgment of the court of first instance No. 9 of the judgment of first instance as “No. 5 of the judgment of first instance,” and the following is added to the judgment of Supreme Court Decision No. 2017Du30764 Decided May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff did not list a composite shopping mall in the instant adjustment criteria, even if it is an error in legislative technology, the instant adjustment criteria having the effect as a statutory order.