1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is one of the co-owners of each land listed in the attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] (hereinafter “each land of this case”). Since then, each land of this case was changed into 25,850 m2,000 m2,000 for cadastral confirmation following the execution of the land development project.).

B. On June 1, 2015, the Defendant determined and publicly announced the officially assessed individual land price in 2015 as KRW 846,500/m2.

On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection, following a review by the Land Assessment Committee and the Osan City Real Estate Assessment Committee, the Defendant changed the comparative standard site to Osan City C (hereinafter “instant comparative standard site”) with respect to each of the instant land, and adjusted the officially assessed individual land price in 2015 to 720,100,00 square meters by reflecting the characteristics of the land as follows:

(hereinafter “Disposition”). The former part of each of the instant lands in this case is 0.98 waste with a large size of 25,840 1,192 of the land category C in Osan-si, Osan-si, and 16 lots of land in each of the instant land in this case, with a large size of 0.89 square meters in the commercial high slope of 0.89 square meters in the commercial high slope of 1.05 50m or less of 50m or less of 0.98m or less of 0.98m or less of 0.98m or less of 0.97,000,000 m20,100 m20,100/m2 of the total rate of 0.915 m20,000 square meters in the protection area of other military installations.

D. The Defendant filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, on January 13, 2016, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, Eul's 2 and 4 (including all family cards with virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the following errors are found in the land characteristics and vision, and the individual land price of each land of this case is corrected.