1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance and the Defendant’s assertion in the trial are not significantly different from each assertion in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is re-examineed, the judgment of the court of first instance that cited part of the Plaintiff’

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

C. Foods

(a)each “this Court” in the 14th sentence of the 9th, 3, 13, and 11th, shall be regarded as “the first instance court”;

B. The second sentence of the 10th page “I do not exist” means “On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that such circumstances should be reflected as a price decline factor in the price calculation of the remaining land of this case, as the Plaintiff was incorporated into the business of this case and the substantial part of the E land before the division remains remaining, and thus the utility of the remaining land of this case has been significantly decreased as its original purpose. However, it is difficult to conclude that the utility has significantly decreased as a answer compared to the previous one, on the ground that compared with each location, area, and shape of the remaining land of this case before the division, the remaining land of this case remains intact, even if compared with the previous one).”

(c) improve “calculated” in accordance with Part 13 (16).

Part 14 " in accordance with the 9th sentence" shall be understood as "in accordance with the attached sentence."

E. The last 14 and 15th 15th 1st 1st 1st e.g., “the court’s appraisal, as a result, seems to have shown that the access conditions were 0.85, and the land location conditions were 0.95, respectively, compared to the comparison standards of the remaining land after the incorporation into the project implementation zone of this case,” respectively, and the court’s appraisal of the 15th 3rd e.g., “0.91” as “court appraisal”.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate.