1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 585 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. In calculating the officially assessed individual land price in 2013 of the instant land, the Defendant selected Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 499 square meters (hereinafter “C”) as a comparative standard site. Considering that the share ratio of the price of the instant land and C land is the same as that of the instant land as indicated below, the Defendant calculated the land price in 2013 as the officially assessed individual land price in 2013 of the instant land.

On the surface of a road adjacent to a shape of the state of land use, which is low in the shape of the land use of the specific use area, C-1 exclusive residential area (1) or (150) notification (05) south (01) of the sloping-type (04), 08 of the instant land, 1-class exclusive residential area (1) or 1-class exclusive residential area (1) notification (150) south (150) of the instant land, and 1.00 on the south (04) south (01) of the land of this case, 1.00 (08) price allocation rate of 1.01.01.001.001.00

C. On May 31, 2013, the Defendant determined and publicly announced the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2013 as 525,000/m2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) following the procedures for hearing the opinions of landowners, etc. on the said officially assessed individual land price.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 7, Eul No. 2, 3, and 6, the purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The land of this case is the ordinary site or land category, and the land of this case is only the land category, and its substance is miscellaneous land or forest land, which is a miscellaneous land or forest land. Also, C land is adjacent to the right-hand side, and the extension line is naturally 2 meters wide, and if necessary, a new road is allowed even on the left-hand side, but the land of this case cannot be newly constructed without any existing road on the left-hand side. Therefore, the Defendant mistakenly selected a standard for comparison of the land of this case, and instead calculated the officially assessed land price at the same price as the standard for comparison, without considering the substantial value of the land of this case.

3..