The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that each appraisal by the future appraisal corporation and the Dong state appraisal corporation which are the basis of the judgment of the objection of this case evaluated regional factors as equal to the reference land, and it was based on an appropriate method, such as specifically classifying the reasons for comparison in terms of the content of individual factors, and explaining the reasons for comparison. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that each appraisal of this case was erroneous in failing to specifically specify the reasons for deeming it as heat in comparison with the comparison standard.

In light of the records, the recognition and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the appraisal and evaluation or by violating the rules of evidence.

2. Whether the normal market price or compensation example of the neighboring similar land is considered;

The lower court determined that, in light of the developments and processes of the purchase of neighboring land by the Plaintiffs’ assertion, it is difficult to view that the acquisition of the land was performed at a reasonable market price based on the ordinary transaction price due to the existence of special motive or conditions, or other circumstances, and there is no other evidence to support that the sale case of each of the above lands constitutes a normal transaction case of similar similar land and thus, it affects the calculation of the amount of compensation by taking into account it, and the assessment by the central appraisal corporation on the size of 82.9 square meters, which is the neighboring land, is merely an appraisal for the purpose of establishing a collateral, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it

In calculating the reasonable amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated under the current Land Expropriation Act, it is not necessary to examine and take into account the ordinary transaction cases or compensation examples of neighboring similar land, but to take into account cases where there are precedents where neighboring similar land is transacted or compensation and its price is proved to have an impact on the reasonable amount of compensation to be normal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu11396, Apr. 8, 197; 97Nu17711, Jan. 23, 198). However, it is not necessary to take into account that only the price assessed for Hosi tax or security purpose is a mere price assessed for the purpose of security.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision is justified in holding that sales cases and appraisal precedents for neighboring land do not fall under normal transaction cases or compensation precedents for similar land, and that appraisal and assessment, which are not taken into account, cannot be deemed illegal, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, even if the purchase price of the neighboring land within the re-development project area is higher than the compensation price of this case, insofar as the purchase price does not fall under the ordinary transaction cases or the compensation example, it cannot be said that it goes against the principle of the guarantee of private property rights and equality guaranteed by the Constitution, on the ground that the purchase price does not fall under the ordinary transaction cases or the compensation example. The ground of appeal as to this point is without merit

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)