beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 31, 201, the Defendant: (a) decided and publicly announced the officially assessed land price as of January 1, 201 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 462 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) E large 133.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”; and (c) each of the said lands collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”; and (d) as of January 1, 201, the officially assessed land price as of January 1, 201 was KRW 11,00,000 per square meter (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).
B. On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff A filed an objection against the above disposition on the instant land No. 1, Plaintiff C, June 27, 2011, and Plaintiff B, June 30, 2011, respectively, against the instant disposition on the instant land No. 2. However, the Defendant received a verification report from Plaintiff A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, 4-1, 4-2, Eul evidence Nos. 11-1, 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 12-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 14-1, 2, 15-1, 16-2, 16-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) Although more than half of the land of this case was designated as Class 3 general residential areas, the defendant assessed the officially assessed land price as the neighboring land belonging to the general commercial area, and although the land of this case was divided from Class 1 land of this case and designated as Class 3 general residential areas, the defendant assessed the height of the officially assessed land price by applying the same standard as before partition. 2) Although the building above each of the land of this case is only constructed on the part of Class 3 general residential area excluding the general commercial area among the land of this case and the second general residential area of this case, the defendant did not separate the general commercial area of the land of this case and Class 3 general residential area.