1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff asserted in the trial while filing an appeal, are not different from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance are re-examineed along with the Plaintiff’s assertion,

Therefore, the reasoning for this case is as follows: “There is no reason for the lower court’s entry” in the first instance court’s six pages 1 on the following grounds: “The normal price of adjoining similar land” can be considered in the event there is a case where the price of neighboring similar land does not necessarily need to be taken into account when the normal transaction cases of nearby similar land in calculating the price of the land to be expropriated, but it is proved that the price thereof is normal and that it may affect the adequate assessment of compensation amount; “The normal price of adjoining similar land” in this case means the price formed in ordinary transactions with respect to land identical or similar to the pertinent land, such as specific use area, land category, grade, land register, form, use situation, statutory restrictions, etc., and the development gains are not included, but is not formed in speculative transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du9783, Apr. 12, 2002; 300Du46064, Apr. 16, 1994; 2006Du36964, etc.

Pursuant to the case of trading in W, “before W” on October 1, 2016, October 1, 2013, 200.