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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the supplement of the first instance court's decision as to this case, and the reasoning of the court below's reasoning is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the second bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, five "individual factors: 0.980" are as follows:

Individual factors: 0.980 The marks of this case are 5 to 7 under the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, "The horizontal conditions compared to the comparative standard sheet of 10.98 1.00 1.00 00 1.00 1.00 0.980 1.00 1.00 0.980 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.980 0.0 0.0.0 1.00 0.0 1.0.0

In accordance with the Act on the Comparison of Commercial Cases, the individual land price at the time of the transaction of road traffic in the area for the purpose of using the land mark of land value under the same Act shall be determined as “the transaction case (1) land” on August 18, 2014, where the individual land price at the time of the transaction of road traffic in the area for the purpose of using the land mark of land value under the same Act, is calculated as the planning management tax (1) at the time of each of H prior planning (24,300 square meters).

(1) The term “hour value” in the first instance judgment of the court below is deemed as “pro rata value” in the case of trading (i) 224,300 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.006 431,906 431,000 m27 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.006 431,906 431,000 m2,000 m2 under the 3rd part of the judgment of the first instance.

The fourth-class 9 to 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

On July 20, 2017, “(3) The Korea Appraisal Board notified the Defendant of the appraisal of the instant case that “The appraisal of the instant case is appropriate in terms of the selection of a non-standard site, time revision, and comparison of regional and individual factors, but the process of examining the reasonableness by the comparison of transaction comparison with other factors was inappropriate and the appraisal of the instant case exceeded the reasonable level, and thus the appraisal of the instant case was required to be deliberated by the Disciplinary Committee.”