1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim claims expanded from the trial are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the court of the first instance cited “149,30,000 won” as “149,80,000 won” of the first instance judgment No. 4, 6, 149,300,000 won, and the Defendant’s assertion emphasized or added in the trial is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment, except for those determined by the following paragraphs 2 and 3, and thus, this conclusion is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Appropriateness of the calculation of settlement balance;

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the market price of the instant real estate as of August 12, 2013 as of August 12, 2013, based on the result of the appraisal by appraiser D of the first instance trial on the contents of the Defendant’s assertion, was 149,80,000,000 as of August 12, 2013, and the Defendant asserts that the said appraisal result is unfair

① In other words, the expectation of the development gains of the instant real estate was not properly reflected.

② The market price of the instant real estate was excessively lower than that of other real estate in the vicinity by selecting improper comparative transaction cases.

③ The instant real estate had been assessed as being 1.05 superior to the transaction cases designated by the first instance court appraiser, even though the external factors were extremely superior to those designated by the first instance court appraiser.

B. The result of the appraisal by the judgment appraiser should be respected unless the method of appraisal is against the rule of experience or is so obvious that it is unreasonable or unreasonable.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances, the market price of the instant real estate by the first instance appraiser cannot be deemed to have been significantly erroneous, such as going against the empirical rule or unreasonable, and the market price of the instant real estate cannot be deemed to have been excessively low, in view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the result of the appraisal by the first instance appraiser of the first instance trial and the instant appraiser’s request for the supplementation and supplementation of the said appraiser of the first instance trial and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1. The appraised value of the instant real estate.