1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for a partial change or addition of a part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2

2. Parts changed;

A. On the 2nd page 6, the term “1,481 square meters prior to Daejeon Pung-gu C” is as “1,481 square meters prior to Daejeon Pungsung-gu C” (hereinafter “C land”), and the term “1,481 square meters prior to Daejeon Pung-gu C” in the 3th page 4, and the term “C land” in the 3rd and 5th parallel parallels as “C land”.

(b) Each of the 3rd and 6th and 4th and 13th and each of the 3rd and 4th and 13th and each of the “the present standard land” in the 3rd and 6th and 13th and is replaced by each of the “the present standard land” in the 3rd and 6th and 6th.

C. The number of pages 3, 8, and 9 “Seong-gu E 3,115 square meters” is replaced by “Seongsung-gu E 3,115 square meters” (hereinafter “E land”).

In Part 4, each "this Court" is replaced by each "Court of First Instance".

(e) Part 5, paragraph 1, “C” of the same page as “C land” and each of “E” of the same page of the heading 1,481 square meters and the heading 1, 2, of the same page as “E” respectively; and each of “E” of the heading 1, 2, and 3,15 square meters and the same page of the same page.

(f) Part 6, paragraph 3, “from the fact of the above recognition,” is replaced by “The above fact of recognition and the entry of evidence No. 15, by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings.”

(g) the 6th page 5 and the 6th page 6 is replaced by the “copterate (F, M), educational research and welfare facilities (G), warehouse facilities (H, I, J,K), and Class I neighborhood convenience facilities (L).”

3. Subsequent to the 6th page 9 and 10 of the additional part, “similarly similar point”, the Defendant presented his opinion that it is reasonable for the Defendant to select the reference land of this case as the reference land price in calculating the officially assessed individual land price of this case. However, the Defendant’s individual decision after the first instance judgment was rendered.