[토지수용재결처분취소][집39(1)특,556;공1991.5.1.(895),1190]
A. In a case where the plaintiff, who received an objection to partially raise the amount of compensation after raising an objection on the ground that the amount of land expropriation compensation is low, files a lawsuit against the superintendent of education office, which is a business entity, a claim for confirmation of invalidity of the public notice of the standard land price in the claim and compensation for damages, and then files an application for modification of the purport of the claim against the committee, along with the application for correction of the defendant to change the defendant to the Central Land Expropriation Committee, whether the submission of the application for modification of the above claim
(b) Number of reference land for land to be expropriated;
(c) Whether measures taken into account only a compensation example or heading of neighboring land are appropriate without simply identifying whether there are transaction cases of similar similar land in calculating the amount of compensation based on the standard land price (negative)
A. Even if the statement itself of the purport of the claim stated in the complaint itself is deemed to be an unlawful lawsuit because it is not a method of appeal as stipulated in a specific administrative law, if it is evident that the cause of the claim is unlawful and that the entry of the purport of the claim is due to mistake, it cannot be deemed to be a new claim if the party subsequently changed the purport of the claim according to a legitimate method of appeal and made a clear determination by mistake. Thus, in filing a lawsuit against the Superintendent of an Office of Education, which is an enterprise in the complaint, on the ground that the amount of compensation for land expropriation is low, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Superintendent of an Office of Education, which is the object of education, to seek confirmation of invalidity of the public notice and compensation for damages, and then filed an application for change of the purport of the claim against the above committee to seek cancellation of the ruling against the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff first filed a lawsuit against the Superintendent of an Office of Education, and in fact, it cannot be deemed to have made a new objection to the cancellation of the ruling against land expropriation.
(b) In the case of expropriation of land in an area where the reference land is publicly announced, the amount of compensation for losses shall be calculated on the basis of the reference land price of the reference land by land category of the land to be expropriated, if the relevant land category is a dry field, paddy field, site, forest and miscellaneous land, and only one reference land of which the relevant land category and grade are the same among the reference land for each category of land to be expropriated is determined in advance according to the grade by land category
C. In calculating the standard price of reference land on the basis of the reference land price, the land price fluctuation rate of neighboring land unrelated to the relevant region, wholesale price increase rate, normal market price of neighboring similar land, and other matters shall be taken into consideration. In light of the normal market price of neighboring similar land, it is unlawful to take into account only the compensation example or quotation of neighboring land without clarifying whether there are cases of transaction.
A. Article 21(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Articles 48 and 49 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989)
A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10251 delivered on August 8, 1989 (Gong1989,1378) (Gong1989,1378). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8647 delivered on December 27, 198 (Gong1989,248) (Gong1990,2292) delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong1990,1271). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8002 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong1990,1271) (Gong190,1805). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3010 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong190,1805)
Gambi Kim, Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant
Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu3412 delivered on May 4, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. We examine the first ground for appeal.
Even if the statement itself of the purport of a claim stated in the complaint itself is not a method of appeal as stipulated in a specific administrative law, and it is not an unlawful lawsuit, if it is evident that the entry of the purport of the claim is due to an error in the law of the specific administrative disposition, it cannot be viewed as a new claim if the party subsequently changed the purport of the claim and made it clear in accordance with a legitimate method of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10251, Aug. 8, 1989).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the land of this case, which was owned by the non-party 1, had been incorporated into the area of hot spring facilities facilities project conducted by the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Busan Metropolitan City, Busan. Upon application of the above Superintendent of the Office of Education, the defendant decided on March 11, 198 that the compensation for losses would be KRW 58,223,00, and the above compensation for losses would be less than the amount of compensation. The defendant raised an objection on September 16, 198 by changing the above compensation for losses to KRW 61,908,00 on the ground that the above compensation for losses could not be seen as the plaintiff's delivery of the above written adjudication on October 1, 1988, and it is clear that the court below's determination on the ground that the above correction of the compensation for losses could not be made within the scope of 9,000,0000, which is the basis of the above correction of the appraisal of this case's 1,000.
2. We examine the second ground for appeal.
In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Articles 48 and 49 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Apr. 1, 1989), where the land category of the area for which the standard land price is publicly announced is a dry field, site, forest, and miscellaneous land, the compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price for each category of the land for which the land is to be expropriated. 1. 2. 98 billion won of the same land category and grade shall be determined on the basis of the price increase in neighboring land prices of the land; 90. 98.
In full view of relevant evidence, the court below selected two appraisal reports (No. 5-2) of the Korea Land Appraisal Co., Ltd.'s two appraisal reports (No. 5-2) on the land of this case, which are the basis of calculating the amount of compensation for objection to the land of this case, as stated in its holding, and each appraisal report (No. 5-2 and No. 6-2) of the Japanese Land Appraisal Co., Ltd.'s joint offices (No. 5-2 and No. 6-2) on the land of this case was all an example of the sale of similar land of this case, although it was known that the normal sale price of neighboring land of this case was not taken into account, the above two appraisal reports cannot be deemed a legitimate assessment in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and therefore, it is proper that the disposition of objection of this case based on this findings was judged to have been unlawful, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the theory of
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)