(b) Methods of assessing land prices when calculating compensation for losses caused by expropriation;

(b) In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the reasonable price shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of adjudication of expropriation without considering the price changes due to the approval and announcement of a plan directly aiming at the implementation of the relevant public project, but the development gains arising from the implementation of another project unrelated to the relevant public project shall be determined at the

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

In full view of the relevant provisions such as Articles 8 and 10 of the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (repealed by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990; hereafter referred to as the "former Act") and Articles 17 and 22 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 4574, Aug. 5, 1993; hereafter referred to as the "new Act"), the approval of the implementation plan for the industrial base development project under the former Act (the industrial complex development project under the new Act; hereafter referred to as the "development project") is a disposition that has the authority to implement the development project, so the approval of the implementation plan is not different from the initial approval. Therefore, if the new approval of the modification meets the requirements for the approval, the operator of the development project shall also apply for the approval of the implementation plan within the scope of the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation after preparing the approval of the implementation plan for the development project.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit. All the arguments are merely the plaintiff's independent opinion, and they cannot be accepted.

2. We examine the Defendants’ attorney’s grounds of appeal.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the appraisal of the price of the land in this case should be made according to the previous conditions, since the specific use area of the land in this case was changed to an industrial area is due to the project concerned, and since the land price in neighboring areas was wide due to the development project in this case and the officially announced land price of reference land includes development gains from the development project concerned, it cannot be deemed that the increase in the price of the land in this case at the time of expropriation does not constitute development gains, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a price increase exceeding the natural land price increase on the land in this case and the reference land price of this case due to the change in the specific use area of this case, the court below calculated the appropriate amount of compensation for the land in this case by selecting the land price in this case as the officially announced land price of reference land in this case, and applying the rate of land price increase to the officially announced land price of reference land in order to take account of the factors such as the region and individual factors, etc.

B. In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the approval of a plan directly aimed at the implementation of the public project in question and the price fluctuation caused by public announcement shall, without consideration, be determined at a reasonable price based on the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation. However, the development gains arising from the implementation of another project unrelated to the public project in question shall be determined at the price not excluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu774, Feb. 11, 1992; 91Nu4324, Mar. 13, 1992; 91Nu8562, Oct. 27, 1992).

According to the records, the whole land area of this case was originally a rural area, which is not subject to the Urban Planning Act or the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory. However, on April 1, 1974, the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated an industrial base development zone pursuant to Article 5 of the former Act and decided on February 19, 1975 to change the urban planning zone as an industrial area, and designated a special-purpose area as an industrial area. On March 5, 1988, the development project implementation plan was approved pursuant to Article 8 of the former Act. At the time of the decision of expropriation, the land use of this case was newly constructed as a factory site for the non-party 1 corporation. In this case, the designation of special-purpose area as an industrial area for the land of this case is the designation of the above industrial base development zone, and it should be deemed that it is directly aimed at the execution of the development project of this case, apart from the fact that the land price at the time of expropriation is actual use, the designation of the above industrial base development zone and its previous designation should be considered.

Nevertheless, in calculating the adequate amount of compensation for the land of this case, it is clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation for losses under Article 46(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Use of Land Act, and Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Use of Land Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise that the designation of the specific use area was not for the direct purpose of the development project of this case, based on the price of the land of

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)