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 court’s explanation in this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. On the Defendant’s assertion of omission of development gains, the Defendant asserts that development gains were omitted in the appraised value of the instant real estate.

The fact that the Plaintiff obtained authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 8, 2008 pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act and subordinate statutes, and on January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project whose project is the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Seodaemun-gu 19,468.90 square meters as the project implementation district for the maintenance project including the instant real estate, is recognized as above.

The following circumstances revealed in full view of the appraisal results and the purport of the entire argument of the appraiser E appraiser’s office: (i) the appraiser conducted an appraisal on May 18, 2012, after the date of authorization for the establishment of the above association and the date of the conclusion of the sales contract due to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to sell the instant real estate after the date of authorization for the implementation of the project; and (ii) the appraiser violated the above appraiser’s rules by selecting an apartment with the same exclusive area (57.02 square meters) located on the 23rd East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East in the real estate sold at KRW 193,150,00 on December 28, 2012; and (iii) calculating the development gains by separately separating the part of the appraisal including the development gains; and (iv) the appraiser violated the above appraiser’s rules.

In light of the fact that there seems to be no reason to believe the result of appraisal, the appraised value of KRW 198,400,000 by the said appraiser seems to be the market price that reflects the development gains from the objective transaction price of the instant real estate.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant.