1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is the owner of B miscellaneous land B 711 square meters and C miscellaneous land 79 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”).

The Defendant, on May 31, 2017, selected as a comparative standard place the D major 136 square meters (hereinafter “the reference land of this case”) in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and decided and publicly announced the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2017 on each of the instant land as 2,253,000/ square meters, respectively.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case’s disposition”). [This case’s disposition’s ground for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 11, and 12-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case’s entire purport of the disposition in this case’s Disposition is finalized on July 20, 209 by the Defendant’s revocation of the decision on the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2009 (hereinafter “the officially assessed individual land price decision in 2009”) as of January 1, 209, the decision became retroactively extinguished. As such, the Defendant shall take a new procedure to publicly announce and publicly announce the officially assessed individual land price of this case’s land in this case’s process, and thus, the disposition in this case’s disposition is contrary to the binding force of the judgment, and is in violation of procedural law.

Although the reference land of this case is the library site and its current status are different from each land of this case used for commercial land, and there are more adjacent reference land to each land of this case, the defendant selected the reference land of this case as a comparative standard site and calculated the officially assessed individual land price of each land of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Since the officially announced value of each land of this case was set significantly lower than that of the surrounding land, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Although the reference land in this case is a planned facility, the Defendant applied the price distribution rate from the preparatory document dated November 2018 to the “0.85” on the ground that each land in this case is planned facilities.