(b) The case holding that, where restrictions under public law are imposed directly on the implementation of the relevant public project, evaluation shall be conducted in a state without such restrictions;

B. The case holding that, even if the period between the designation of a local industrial development promotion district under the former Local Industrial Development Act (repealed by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990) and the designation of an industrial area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the approval of a project implementation plan under the Industrial Sites and Development Act is exceptionally long-term, the designation of a local industrial complex is a series of measures for the implementation of the project, and the designation of a special-purpose area as an industrial complex is an objection to the designation of an industrial complex, and it is deemed that the designation of an industrial complex was made for the purpose of the implementation of the project directly, barring any special circumstance, in assessing the land price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation for the implementation of the project, the designation of

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the relevant laws, evidence and records, the decision of the court below that the transaction example cited by the plaintiff cannot be seen as land identical or similar to the land of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence. There is no reason to discuss.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that since the land of this case was designated as an industrial development promotion district around 1979 and the land price was dynamicd or diminished between the time of the designation and the time of the ruling of expropriation of this case, and the above district designation is directly aimed at the development project of this case, and therefore the above district designation should be revised as a normal land price increase due to the above regulation as other matters, the land of this case is designated as an industrial development district around 1979 and as an industrial area according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory around 1982, the restriction on use of this case was already imposed prior to the specific implementation of the expropriation project of this case. Accordingly, in calculating the compensation amount for the land of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above restriction should be based on the price assessed according to the situation of land use at the time of the ruling.

B. In calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land subject to restrictions under public law, if the restriction under public law directly aims at the implementation of the relevant public project, it shall be evaluated as without such restriction, and if a general planning restriction has already been placed by public notice, etc. under the Urban Planning Act regardless of the relevant public project, it shall be evaluated as being in the state of being subject to such restriction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu774, Feb. 11, 192).

According to the records, the land in this case was originally designated as an industrial area under the Urban Planning Act or the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which was not subject to the Urban Planning Act or the Act on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory. However, on November 26, 1979, the land in this case was designated as an industrial area under Article 155 of the Local Industrial Development Act (repealed by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990) in accordance with Article 2 of the Local Industrial Development Act, and was designated as an industrial area on January 8, 1982 as a construction promotion district under the Act on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory, and thereafter, the implementation plan prepared by the Defendant, who is the project operator, was approved in accordance with the Industrial Sites and Development Act, and the development project was officially announced as a project on Nov. 30, 199, and currently in progress.

In such a case, there is no doubt that the designation of a local industrial complex (the designation of a local industrial complex under Article 3 (2) of the Addenda to the Industrial Sites and Development Act) and a special-purpose area and the designation of a local industrial complex under the same Act for the purpose of the approval of the implementation plan of the project in this case is a long-term period of time. However, the designation of a local industrial complex is a series of measures to implement the project in this case, and the designation of a special-purpose area for the land in this case is an objection to the designation of the industrial complex in this case, and it is deemed that the designation of the industrial complex in this case was made for the purpose of the implementation of the project in this case. Unless there are special circumstances, the designation of the industrial complex in this case and the designation thereof shall be evaluated without consideration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7386, Mar. 3, 195).

Nevertheless, under the premise that the court below rejected the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that it should be based on the price assessed as it is subject to such restriction, it is clear that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of compensation for losses, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, there is a ground to

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)