(b) The market price, where the horizontal number of building sites falls short of the standard horizontal number of building permission, and such shape is funeral;

2. If the horizontal value of a building site falls short of the standard horizontal value of the building permit under the Building Act and the shape of a building is difficult to construct a normal building due to a three-dimensional shape, barring any special circumstance, the utility value and exchange value are obviously lower than the normal market value of the building site. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the appraisal of the market price by deeming such fact as normal building site is difficult to believe.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act, in a case where there is a person who has received a considerable benefit from an urban planning project, the executor of the urban planning project may, under the Presidential Decree, bear part of the expenses required for the urban planning project within the scope of such benefit, and Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act prior to the amendment of October 20, 197, provides that the said beneficiary’s charge shall be imposed only when the price of the land or building increases by not less than 100 percent of the total amount of natural inflation in the price before the implementation of the project, due to the implementation of the said urban planning project, when there is a person who has received a considerable benefit from the said urban planning project. In other words, the burden of proving that the price of the land or building has increased by not less than 100 percent of the total amount of natural inflation in the price before the implementation of the said

In this case, according to the appraiser's appraisal result of the non-party of the court below as to the non-party's 7th 4th Hunbbebbeb's land at issue in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, the land price was KRW 250,00 per square day around April 7, 197, which was at the time of the defendant's central expansion construction work. However, the price of the above land was increased to KRW 520,00 per square day around September 30, 197, which was at the time of its completion. However, according to the testimony and the result of the non-party's appraisal by the witness of the court below as above, the 7.4th m of the above land is the three m/ 1.5 m in width and 11.5 m in length, which cannot be constructed because it is below the standard number of building permission under the Building Act, and it is acknowledged that the above appraisal price was evaluated as the normal value of the building site, as otherwise alleged by the court below.

In addition, the court below held that even if the amount of compensation for the part included in the road among the land of this case is less than the market price, the plaintiff does not constitute a person who has received a significant benefit from the urban planning project for the expansion of a road as a whole. However, unless there is no evidence as to the occurrence of significant benefit as seen above, this part of the judgment is an unnecessary supplementary reason that does not affect the conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)