1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff at the court of first instance is not significantly different from that of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's assertion even if the evidence submitted at the court of first instance is re-examine

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is the same as that for the first instance judgment, except for the following “the second instance judgment,” and thus, the same is cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The phrase “written evidence No. 14” in Section 7 of Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to read “Evidence No. 14 and Evidence No. 1-1 of No. 1”.

In the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act")" shall be deemed as the "Gu Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas")

In the first instance judgment, each of the "Urban Improvement Act" in the second, second, third, third, and third, shall be considered as the "former Urban Improvement Act".

In the first instance judgment, the second sentence No. 12 and 13 of the first instance judgment stated as follows: "It is reasonable to interpret that "the exempted fee, etc. is also included in the usage fee under the State Property Act".

In the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the term "1-1" in the third sentence shall be changed to "1-2".

The phrase “The Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association for North Asia 1-1 Urban Renewal Promotion Zone” in the column of the implementor of Gap evidence 10 appears to be the clerical error of “the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association for North Asia 1-2 Urban Renewal Promotion Zone”.

Article 32 (6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”) of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be Article 32 (6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Urban Improvement Act") is hereinafter referred to as "the same."