All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, even if the instant building was designated as Class D to the facilities at risk from disasters, the lower court did not have any development gains arising from reconstruction.

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant building has no economic value and its sales price should not be recognized, and rather, the cost of removing the instant building should be deducted from the price of the instant land.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the purchase price under Article 563 of the Civil Act or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the appraiser’s appraisal method shall be respected unless there exist significant errors in the empirical rule, such as the appraisal method, etc. is contrary to or unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608 Decided January 12, 2012). Meanwhile, the standard comparison table (land price ratification table) on the factors of land price formation prepared and provided by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to relevant administrative agencies is provided as data to calculate the individual land price. It does not constitute the basis for calculating the amount of compensation following the expropriation of land, but is merely merely limited to the consideration data.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11507 Decided July 12, 2007). The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, even if the appraiser calculated a gap rate different from the gap rate set forth in the land price ratification table, the appraisal result of this case is contrary to the empirical rule.

The appraisal result of the instant appraisal cannot be deemed unreasonable or otherwise, and there is a significant error in the appraisal result of the instant case.

or determined that there was no objective reason to believe the appraisal result of the instant case.

Examining the records in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court.