All appeals filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.

The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the Plaintiff is the owner of each land (hereinafter “land 1, 2,” 3, and 4”) indicated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “land 1, 3, and 4”).

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the separate drawings) is the same as that of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (including the separate drawings), except for the argument that the plaintiff and the defendant emphasized or added in each of these courts. Accordingly, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on whether the individual land price was determined in accordance with the procedure and method prescribed by the relevant laws, such as the Public Notice of Values Act, and the market price of the pertinent land is not directly related to the actual transaction price. Thus, the determination of the price is considerably unreasonable solely on the ground that the land price exceeds the appraised price or the actual transaction price, and thus, it cannot be readily determined that the determination of the price is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6138, Oct. 11, 2013, etc.). 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim against Jeju Special Self-Governing Province for the fee claim against the Plaintiff ( Jeju District Court Decision 2019Na11838, Jeju District Court Decision 2019Na11838), since the Plaintiff’s appraisal and assessment of the rent for calculating the land price was conducted, the Defendant may not be deemed to have compared the standard land price 1 or 3 (M) with the land’s standard land usage 1 or 3).