1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's argument in the trial of the court of the first instance to the following, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The Defendant asserts that the appraisal result of the appraiser E of the first instance court, which assessed the transaction price of the instant real estate as of October 17, 2014 as of KRW 2.265 billion, is based on the maximum system, and it cannot be deemed that the sales price abolished as of January 1, 2015 was properly reflected in the transaction price including development gains.

As seen earlier, since the base point of time for assessing the value of land, buildings or other rights subject to cash liquidation is the date following the end of the period for application for parcelling-out, the circumstance that the maximum system for parcelling-out price was abolished after October 17, 2014, which is the end of the period for application for parcelling-out in this case, does not affect the assessment of the value of the real estate in this case, and the appraisal result by the appraiser of the first instance court is without merit since the appraisal of the real estate in this case was conducted by the appraiser of the first instance court after reviewing the actual transaction cases concerning the real estate of this case and the real estate of which the whole land area and the site ownership are identical or similar to the real estate in this case, and the appraisal cases of the real estate of this case are high, the price of the real estate in this case is calculated through comparison of individual factors, and it is clear that the development gains asserted by the defendant have already been fully reflected in the rebuilding improvement project process and the progress period of the reconstruction improvement project by A

The defendant should recognize the sale price of the instant real estate as the purchase price for the instant real estate at least KRW 2,429,842,857, which had been assessed by the plaintiff himself in the course of the reconstruction project.