B. Whether the selection of the reference land, which was classified by grade, is illegal after the abolition of Article 48(1)2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (Elimination by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989) (negative)

B. Since statutes, such as the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc., the Enforcement Decree thereof, the Enforcement Rule thereof, and the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment, which provide for the standards and procedures for calculating the amount of compensation, do not have different classes in the standard land selection, the selection of standard land cannot be deemed unlawful merely because it did not take into account the class of land deemed most similar in accordance

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 2(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Compensation for Loss (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13649 of May 22, 192) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13649 of May 2, 1992) provides that the assessment of the compensation amount for the acquisition of land, etc. shall be conducted by two or more land evaluators registered for opening an office under Article 29-3(1) of the Act on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory, or by a certified appraiser or appraisal company registered or authorized under Articles 5 and 6 of the Act on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory, and the calculation of the compensation amount shall be based on the average amount calculated (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10087, Oct. 11, 1991).

The court below's decision on the compensation amount of the land of this case by the appraisal of the non-party 1 appraiser of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated in this case, the appraiser of the court below, which was adopted by the court below, shall be assessed as prescribed by the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Apr. 1, 1989; Act No. 4120, Dec. 31, 1991; Act No. 460, Dec. 21, 1989; Act No. 460, Dec. 21, 1989; Act No. 460, Dec. 21, 1989; Act No. 460, Dec. 21, 1989) which was enforced at the time of the decision of expropriation in this case

This paper is derived from the misunderstanding of the purpose and application time of the law concerning the calculation of compensation amount.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the appraisal and assessment of the non-party to the appraisal and assessment of the non-party as the basis for the calculation of the compensation amount, in selecting the reference land for the land to be expropriated in this case, such appraiser shall select the reference land which is the most similar to the relevant land and its use, land category, actual conditions of use, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions from among the reference land publicly announced in the area where the land in this case is located as the reference land for each corresponding land. The Minister of Construction and Transportation calculated the land price fluctuation rate for the above period in Gangnam-gu, Seoul where the land in this case belongs, based on the land price fluctuation rate surveyed and announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation from the basic date to the adjudication date. In light of the records, the above determination and application rate of the reference land for the appraiser in the original judgment is appropriate, and it cannot be found that there was any error in the evaluation methods,

According to Article 48 (1) 2 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989) since the appraiser of the court below did not consider the grade of the land to be expropriated and the reference land in the selection of the reference land, the appraisal appraiser of the court below divided the reference land into class 3 according to the conditions or conditions of the land use by five land categories, such as the previous answer, and determined one reference land by category, and classified it by grade in the selection of the reference land. However, this provision was repealed by the enforcement of the Land Price Disclosure Act, and Article 4 of the Land Price Disclosure Act generally similar to the land use, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions, so that the reference land can be selected from among the reference land, which is not so similar to that of the reference land in the previous case, because there is no reason to view that the appraisal and assessment of the reference land has been the most similar to that of the reference land.

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)