All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts based on the evidence of employment, and determined that the Defendant’s calculation of the officially assessed individual land price of each of the instant land was lawful by selecting Gangnam-gu Seoul, the reference land of the same nature as the instant land, as a comparative standard site, on the ground that there was no comparative standard for calculating the officially assessed individual land price in the vicinity of each of the instant land,

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant statutes and the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the guidelines for the selection of comparative standard points stipulated in the “Guidelines for the Investigation and Calculation of Individual

2. Where multiple parcels of land on the second ground of appeal are indivisible for the purpose of use, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to consider the whole parcels of land as one parcel, and to investigate the characteristics of land as one parcel, and assess the whole at a single price for the purpose of use. "Where the situation in which a group of lands are used is in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use" refers to a case where the situation in which a group of lands is used is deemed reasonable and reasonable in terms of social and administrative aspects,

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Du8824 Decided July 27, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6138 Decided October 11, 201, etc.). The lower court acknowledged the facts based on the relevant employment evidence, and determined that the Defendant calculated a single officially assessed individual land price for the entire land after the Defendant assessed each of the instant land as a complex, on the ground that each of the instant land is being used as a site for a building constructed over each of the instant land, and is in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use.

The judgment below

The grounds for appeal are examined earlier.