1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records, the court below determined that the Minister of Construction and Transportation publicly announced the standard land price (the base date of the appraisal) on December 12, 1979, pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory in Seongdong-gu Seoul, including the land in this case, which included the land in this case and notified the fact that the neighboring mixed nature of the site 176-15 of the standard land was included in the daily won and announced as 350,000 won per square day, and the above recognition is just in light of the records, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground to discuss.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant, in making an objection against the expropriation ruling of the land and building of this case, by requesting an appraisal to a joint office of Korea and Japan land appraisal company, and determined the compensation amount for the land of this case based on the appraisal results of the above two appraisal agencies. The judgment of this case is lawful as it is in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 29 of the Act on the Management of

However, according to Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the amount of compensation for expropriation of the land, the standard price of which is publicly notified, shall be based on the standard price, but shall be determined based on the price of the land in question from the date of the public announcement of the target area to the time of the determination of the compensation amount, in consideration of the land price fluctuation rate of neighboring land unrelated to the relevant area, wholesale price increase rate, normal transaction price of neighboring similar land, and other matters. Thus, the records of evidence Nos. 7 and 8, which the defendant used as the basis for the calculation of the compensation amount of expropriation in this case, are examined and the records of the records are examined, and the joint office of Korea and Japan appraisal company which received the request for appraisal by the defendant, and the compensation amount of the land in this case are not considered in all matters stipulated in Article 29 (5) of the above Act. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment below, which points out this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)