B. Whether the circumstance that the land to be expropriated is not located in the land readjustment project zone is an index in determining the standard land for the land (negative)

B. In the selection of the reference land for the assessment of the standard land price under Article 29(1) and (3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the standard land area for the selection of the reference land shall not be divided into a land zone and a non-land zone for the assessment of the standard land price, so the situation that the land is not located in a land zone for the readjustment of land does not constitute an index for the determination of the reference land for the land, separate from those corresponding to Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49(1)4(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

1. The former part of Article 67(1) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that public project operators shall acquire ownership on the date of expropriation of land or things, and Article 65 of the same Act provides that if public project operators fail to pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal by the time of expropriation or use, the adjudication by the relevant Land Tribunal shall be null and void. Meanwhile, according to Article 75(2) of the same Act, if the Central Land Tribunal revokes or alters the original adjudication by filing an objection and thereby increases the compensation, public project operators shall pay or deposit the increased compensation within one month from the date of receipt of the original written adjudication.

However, the court below held that if the compensation has been increased due to the cancellation or change of the original adjudication in the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee in accordance with the invalidation provision of Article 65 above Article 65 above applies mutatis mutandis to the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, it is reasonable to interpret that if the person entitled to the compensation has not paid or deposited the increased compensation in full within one month from the date on which the original adjudication was served with the original copy of the adjudication on cancellation or change of the original adjudication, the adjudication also becomes null and void. On this premise, the court below stated that the defendant, who applied for the adjudication on expropriation of the land listed in the first instance judgment, deposited the increased compensation amount of KRW 25,596,00, which is part of the increased compensation amount of KRW 35,596,00,000 after the lapse of one month from the time when the defendant was served with the adjudication on expropriation of the land listed in the judgment by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (the original judgment deposited part of the increased compensation amount of KRW 25,596,00).

However, we do not agree with the above determination by the court below as an weak interpretation.

With respect to the ruling of objection by the Central Land Expropriation, Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act does not have the same provision as Article 65 of the same Act on the invalidation of the ruling, and according to Article 75-2 (2) of the same Act, when the ruling of objection has become final and conclusive, the original copy of the ruling shall be deemed to have the same effect as the original copy of the judgment with executory power, and according to Article 76 of the same Act, the objection under the Land Expropriation Act is a separate procedure in which the progress of the project and the expropriation or use of land are not suspended even if there is an objection against the ruling by the competent Land Expropriation Committee, while the procedure of objection against the original ruling is a separate procedure in which the effect of the final ruling is different, and whether there is no payment or deposit of increased compensation for losses in the ruling is a requirement for the invalidation of the ruling.

Therefore, even if the entrepreneur did not pay or deposit the increased compensation in the objection ruling within a certain period, it cannot be interpreted that the above objection ruling is naturally null and void, unless there is a special provision.

The judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the invalidation of a ruling on the objection.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) deemed that the Defendant’s land-based joint office and advanced land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land price is 31,500 won per square meter, which is the base date for appraisal; (b) determined that the land-based land price was 10,349,000 won per square meter per square meter; and (c) the land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land price was 10,349,00 won prior to the determination of the above land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land price was 60,000 won per square meters per square meter per square meter; and (d) determined that the remaining land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-land.

However, Article 29 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall evaluate the land price and announce it as the standard land price in order to promote the adequate maintenance of the land price and the promotion of land use. Article 29 (3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that the arm's length price for the reference land selected from among a group of lands ordinarily recognized as similar to the land-use situation, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions, shall be examined and assessed as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 48 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that a certain area of reference land shall be divided into several categories of land and the classification of land by category by category, and then the standard land price shall not be separately determined depending on the classification of land by category. In other words, the situation that the land is not in a zone for land rearrangement shall not be considered as the compensation for the compensation for the land, apart from Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and its head.

According to the records, the above ( Address omitted) forest land does not have any evidence to conclude that the above standard land is not similar to the land use at the time of the public announcement of the target land area or the surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions are not similar to the land list No. 2 of this case. Nevertheless, the court below held that the above ( Address omitted) forest land was illegal solely on the ground that it is the standard land located within the planned district for rearrangement and rearrangement project, which led to the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the standard land, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)