(b) Where the amount of compensation for some items among the items subject to the administrative litigation is insufficient, and the amount of compensation for other items is excessive, whether the latter is useful among the items;

(c) Binding speed of the appraisal by a certified appraisal agency to the court;

B. According to the provisions of Article 45 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991), compensation due to expropriation of land is not for each object of expropriation or use, but for each individual of the victim. Thus, in a case where the victim is dissatisfied with only a part of the objects of expropriation, he/she may file an administrative litigation by asserting the grounds for objection only to that part. However, in a case where the amount of compensation for some of the objects of administrative litigation is underpaid and the amount of compensation for other items is excessive, he/she shall determine the total amount of compensation by permitting the utilization between the said items.

C. An appraisal by a certified public appraisal agency shall be deemed lawful unless there are special circumstances. However, if the appraisal agency erred in the method of calculating the amount of compensation, the court is not bound by this.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

On the first ground for appeal

Since appraisal requires special knowledge and experience in determining certain matters, it is nothing more than to use such knowledge and experience as a supplementary means for the determination. Thus, insofar as there are several different appraisal and assessment of the same facts in a lawsuit for the increase or decrease of compensation, and there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in one of them, even if a court employs any one of the appraisal or recognized facts based on only a part of the appraisal, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless it violates the rules of experience or logic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da44674, Apr. 10, 1992; 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant statutes and the records, the court below is just in rejecting the appraisal result of the appraiser's appraisal appraisal corporation of the court below which assessed the costs to be invested in the future from the expected total income of the future by deducting the costs to be invested in the future among the total expenses, and it is reasonable in the court below's rejection of the appraisal result of the non-party's appraiser's appraisal under the premise that the temperature and management of the cultivation place is adequate, and there is no error as to the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the provisions of Article 45 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, compensation due to the expropriation of land shall not be made by the object of expropriation or use, but by the victim's individual. Thus, in case where there is an objection against only a part of the object of expropriation, the victim may institute an administrative litigation by asserting the ground for objection only to that part. However, in case where the amount of compensation for some of the objects of administrative litigation is underpaid and the amount of compensation for other items is excessive, the total amount of compensation shall be determined by adding up the excessive and insufficient parts by allowing the utilization between the items (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5331 delivered on September 8, 192).

In the same purport, it is proper that the court below determined the amount of compensation by adding up the excessive amount of adjudication and the excessive amount of adjudication among the land and the things on the ground of the land subject to expropriation of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the principle of pleading as argued in the Appeal

There is no reason to discuss the issue.

2. The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined as follows.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the provisions of Articles 49 and 50 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 191) and Article 4(3) of the Public Loss Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 4484 of Dec. 31, 191), Article 2(4) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, etc., the court below shall assess the amount of fruit trees, lost trees, and other standing trees by taking into account their profits or revenues, receiving, or using, techniques, etc. for transplantation, and if there is possibility of transplantation, the degree of difficulty of transplantation, and other factors related to the formation of prices, and it shall be determined by the Central Land Expropriation Commission, as a whole, that the appraisal report or appraisal based on the rate of compensation for transplant of this case or the calculation of compensation for transplant of this case is reasonable, and it shall be determined that the above appraisal report or appraisal can be made based on transplant of each of this case.

In addition, an appraisal by a certified appraisal agency shall be deemed legitimate unless there are special circumstances, but if it was erroneous in the method of calculating the amount of compensation by the appraisal agency, the court shall not be bound (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3687 delivered on Nov. 24, 1989). In this regard, the court below shall adopt the result of the appraisal by the non-party to the original judgment on the possibility of transplantation of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3687 delivered on Nov. 24, 1989) and shall reject the result of the appraisal by the original judgment

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records of the cooking process of the evidence conducted by the court below, the fact finding by the court below as to the point that the defendant points out as the ground of appeal shall be justified, and there is no error of misconception of facts against

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below can be deemed to have rejected the same argument as the theory of lawsuit by the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor. Thus, there is no violation of law of omission of judgment as otherwise alleged in the ground for

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)