1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. The reasons why the court of acceptance of the judgment of the first instance stated in this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment under paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that, on the Defendant’s assertion of appraisal value, the development gains were omitted in the appraisal value of the instant real estate, and that a mistake was made in the amount lower than the appraisal value of the neighboring apartment.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the appraisal results and the overall purport of the pleadings by the appraiser corporation, namely, (1) after the date of the project implementation authorization, the appraiser appraised on May 18, 2012, which is the date of the formation of sales contract due to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to sell the instant real estate after the date of the said project implementation authorization; (2) the appraiser calculated the value by selecting two apartment units on the same apartment units with the same apartment units sold in the same complex as the instant real estate (D apartment) and the same area for exclusive use (57.02 square meters) with the two floors in the same complex as the instant real estate (D apartment), and calculated by comparing and evaluating them; and (3) the above appraiser violated the working rules to be observed.

In light of the fact that the appraiser’s appraisal method, etc. is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da69159, Aug. 20, 2014), the appraised value of KRW 192,50,000 is deemed to be the market price that reflects development gains as an objective transaction price of the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's assertion of abuse of right ( abuse of right to expropriate) is determined by the defendant. 262 of the plaintiff's 262 members wishing to liquidate cash at present, and treatment construction Co., Ltd., a contractor.