(b) In assessing the amount of compensation for a land to be expropriated based on the standard land price, the appropriateness of appraisal, which is not specifically specified to the extent that the regional and individual factors of the reference land and the land to be expropriated can be compared without stating that the value surveyed by a nearby real estate presentation business entity is the normal market price and whether there is a transaction example of similar neighboring land (negative);

B. In assessing the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated based on the standard land price, the lower court’s determination that the said assessment was not properly considered as the factors for determining the price of the land to be expropriated, without mentioning that the assessment report by the land appraiser based on the objection was the normal market price, and as to whether there was a transaction example of similar neighboring land, it cannot be deemed that only the price of neighboring land was taken into account, without making any mentioning at all as to whether there was a transaction example of adjacent similar land. In addition, if it is impossible to find out whether the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated based on the standard land price was appropriately calculated on the basis of the standard land price, on the ground that there was no specific specification as to the regional and individual factors of the reference land and the land to be expropriated,

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant violated the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), the former Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), the former Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989) and the provisions of the Act on the Management and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Apr. 1, 199).

(1) In the event that the standard land price according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is expropriated in the area subject to the public notice of the standard land price, the amount of compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price. The standard land price shall be assessed on the basis of the standard land price, and the standard land price for the land subject to compensation shall be selected only on the basis of the land category, land category, and grade within the relevant area. Thus, two or more standard land prices are listed in the land appraisal report, and if it is impossible to find out which land is selected as the standard land price for the land subject to expropriation even after comprehensive review of the appraisal report, it shall not be deemed a lawful assessment (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5488 delivered on May 23, 1989). In light of the records, the appraisal report of the standard land price for the land subject to compensation shall be conducted on the basis of the above 1 and 2 appraisal company's assessment report (No. 1 and 2) on the land subject to compensation, including the land of this case, and it shall not be determined on the specific appraisal of the standard land.

(2) According to the provisions of Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the assessment of compensation amount based on the standard land price is to take into account the normal transaction price of nearby similar land. Thus, it is illegal to take into account only the price of neighboring land without making clear whether there are transaction cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu581, May 8, 1990). In addition, in calculating the compensation amount of land to be expropriated pursuant to Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the standard land price shall be based on the standard land price of the standard land, but the compensation amount of the land should be determined based on the compensation price of the land to the time the original standard land price is publicly announced from the date the land price is publicly announced as the standard land price to the time the adjudication on compensation amount is made, taking into account the regional and individual factors of the standard land, and the compensation amount should be determined objectively by specifying the compensation amount of the land.

However, according to the records, each appraisal report on the joint office preparation of each land appraisal company as mentioned above, it cannot be deemed that the price surveyed by the neighboring real estate appraisal company is the normal market price, and without clarifying the transaction cases of similar neighboring land, only the price of neighboring land is considered. Since the standard land and each land of this case are not specifically specified to the extent that the regional and individual factors can be compared with the above standard land and each land of this case, it is impossible to determine whether the amount of compensation for each land of this case based on the standard land price was properly calculated, the judgment of the court below that each of the above land appraisal companies' joint offices did not properly consider the factors of price determination is justifiable, and there is no ground to charge this error.

2. Therefore, the court below's revocation of the defendant's objection of this case, which calculated the compensation amount based on the appraisal of each joint office of land appraisal, is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts as to the theory of lawsuit, and the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)