[손실보상금재결처분취소][공1984.5.1.(727),605]
Whether the standard land price can be calculated as the standard land price where the standard land price is publicly announced as the target area at the time of the ruling of expropriation but the standard land price is not publicly notified (negative)
According to Article 29 (3) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (Act No. 3139 of Dec. 5, 1978), while the standard price is to be surveyed and assessed as of the date of the public notice of the target area, the public notice of the standard price cannot be deemed to take effect retroactively to the date of public notice of the target area, and there is no circumstance to deem that the public notice of the standard price becomes effective retroactively as of the date of public notice of the target area. Furthermore, the calculation of losses caused by the expropriation of land should be based on the time of public notice of the expropriation decision. As long as the standard price is public notice of the target area at the time of public notice of the adjudication of expropriation, and unless the standard price is publicly notified, even if the standard price was publicly notified at the time of subsequent
Articles 45, 46(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 3139, 29(3) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory
The Promotion Committee for the Improvement of the Village Structure
Attorney Park Byung-hoon, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal
Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu82 delivered on February 10, 1981
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined (the supplemental appellate brief to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of appeal).
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the compensation amount based on the appraisal result evaluated by the local land expropriation committee in the Plaintiff’s urban planning project area including this case’s land at the market price point of May 25, 1978 and May 27 of the same year. The defendant, who is the ruling authority, is the date of calculating the compensation amount for the above land at the time of the ruling of expropriation by the above local land expropriation committee, but the standard land price publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as of August 21, 1978 at the time of the ruling of expropriation of the above land at the time of the above local land expropriation. The court below changed the original ruling by again calculating the compensation amount based on the appraisal result which is assessed by ratification of the standard land price publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as of August 21, 1978, since the land price of this case is the area publicly notified as the standard land price under Article 29(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which is not related to the standard land price of this area.
2. However, according to the records, the above local land expropriation committee's decision on April 20, 1979, which was at the time when the land expropriation committee made the expropriation decision, was merely a public announcement of the base price for the land of this case, and the base price for the land of this case was a public announcement of August 21, 1978 with the appraisal base date No. 467 of Dec. 12, 1979 (No. 41 of Mar. 16, 1977, which delegated part of the authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the Urban Planning Act to the Do governor, etc.). Under Article 29 (3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (No. 3139 of Dec. 5, 1978), although the standard price for the land of this case was determined to be a public announcement of the base price for the land of this case, it cannot be viewed that the land of this case was retroactively effective as the public announcement of the base price.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)