1. On May 31, 2016, the Defendant’s officially assessed individual land price is KRW 1,947,000 per square meter for the land indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs occupied part of the land indicated in the attached list, which is state property managed by the Korea Railroad Corporation (hereinafter “instant land”), and used it as a site for an unauthorized building. The Korea Railroad Corporation has imposed indemnity calculated on the Plaintiffs based on the officially assessed individual land price.

B. As a result of a survey on land characteristics for the determination of the officially assessed individual land price in 2016 of the instant land, the Defendant assessed the land use status as “road, etc.”, and selected as a comparative standard site of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gdong (hereinafter “Gdong”) land used as commercial land in the vicinity. The Defendant calculated the officially assessed land price of the instant land by multiplying the officially assessed land price of the comparative standard by 0.33, a price distribution rate of which is 0.33, based on the comparison sheet, by the officially assessed land price of the instant land. After deliberation by the Yongsan-gu Real Estate Assessment Committee on May 31, 2016, the officially assessed land price of the instant land as of January 1, 2016 was determined and publicly announced as KRW 1,947,000 per square meter.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The party's assertion 1) In selecting the reference land for calculating the plaintiffs' publicly assessed individual land price, the land use status of the same land among the reference land within the same specific-use area as the subject land should be designated as the reference land. However, the defendant selected H land which is not the land use status of which is the most similar I land, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful. 2) The defendant's assertion that the land of this case was selected in accordance with the criteria set out in the guidelines for investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price, and most parts of the surrounding areas of this case are used as apartment or housing site,