1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

With respect to this case cited in the judgment of the first instance, the reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

◎ 제1심 판결문 제3면 제14, 15행 중 “재결감정 및 이 법원이 주식회사 I 소속 감정평가사 J(이하 ‘법원감정인’이라 한다)에게 의뢰하여 실시한 감정평가결과(이하 ‘법원감정’이라 한다)는”을 “재결감정, 제1심 법원이 주식회사 I 소속 감정평가사 J(이하 ‘제1심 감정인’이라 한다)에게 의뢰하여 실시한 감정평가결과(이하 ‘제1심 감정’이라 한다) 및 이 법원이 주식회사 AA 소속 감정평가사 AF(이하 ‘당심 감정인’이라 한다)에게 의뢰하여 실시한 감정평가결과(이하 ‘당심 감정’이라 하고, 제1심 감정과 당심 감정을 통틀어 지칭할 때는 ‘법원감정’이라 한다)는”으로 고친다.

◎ 제1심 판결문 제4면 제11행부터 제13행까지를 다음과 같이 고친다.

The appraisal at the first instance court assessed the individual factors of E (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant E”) among each of the instant lands, and committed the following mistakes. As a result, if the current status of the instant land is deemed as “forest” and “the front”, the difference between the appraised value and the appraisal value was excessive.

In addition, the evaluation of the land condition of Q Q land of the trial court is also illegal, and the explanation of the appraiser is also contradictory.

Q land was a parcel with the original AE land, but it was divided due to the instant project, and thus, the conditions of Q land shall be assessed based on the shape of the AE land before division.

However, the appraisal in the first instance court assessed the current Q land condition after the division.

On the other hand, X land and Y land.