beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as follows: (a) each of the “court appraisal” of the three-way 15,16, and four-way 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance and each of the “the result of this court’s entrustment of appraisal to the H Appraisal Office of the court of first instance”; and (b) each of the “the result of this court’s entrustment of appraisal to the H Appraisal Office of the court of first instance”; and (c) other than adding the following judgments, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article
2. Additional determination
A. The appraiser at the first instance trial on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion selected F land as a comparative standard for E land. Since the two lands are considerably different in terms of form, surrounding environment, utilization status, and officially announced land value, it did not meet the adequacy of the selection of a comparative standard land.
In addition, the gap rate of the comparison standard paper is too low and unfair.
B. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the appraiser of the first instance court selects F land as a standard for comparison of E land, comprehensively taking into account the identity of the specific use area, restrictions under public law, actual conditions of use, identity or similarity of surrounding environment, etc., geographical closeness, etc. ② compared with F land which is a standard for comparison of E land, regional factors are equal, local factors are low, access conditions among individual factors are low, nature conditions and administrative conditions are low, ③ the above appraiser is geographical close to other factors, and calculated a gap based on the point of time adjustment, regional and individual factors, etc. based on the compensation case of G land which is a forest having a possibility of comparison in the specific use area, land category, utilization, etc., and ④ the Plaintiff’s calculation of a gap based on J land. However, the compensation case or sale case of the above land is the appraiser.