[2] In a case where the court appraiser assessed the conditions of land catching according to the method of calculating the numerical value of the land by taking into account the standard demarcated land that would normally be traded in order to calculate the appraised value of farmland, whether the method of appraisal is unlawful (negative), and the matters to be considered in the case

[3] In the event of an error in appraisal, measures to be taken by the court

[2] The method of calculating the numerical value of the demarcated land by taking into account the situation of ordinary transaction as a standard demarcated land (hereinafter “division calculation method”) is not not to evaluate the overall price factors on the premise of divided land conditions, but to evaluate the standardized land conditions among individual factors, and it is merely the process of calculating the standardized land conditions, and considering the fact that the formation of a reasonable price by supply and demand in a normal market is difficult, such an appraisal method itself cannot be deemed unlawful. In addition, when assessing the demarcated land conditions by the method of a divided calculation, the road or waterway site is still subject to expropriation, which is necessary for dividing the land into the standard demarcated land size.

[3] Even if an appraisal is unlawful, the court may directly calculate the amount of reasonable compensation for losses, such as taking into account the judgment after extracting the portion not unlawful among the appraisal content. However, such an ex officio amendment method is permissible within the extent that it has objectivity and rationality and does not go against the logical and empirical rules. Therefore, if there is an error in the appraisal, it is reasonable for the court to exercise its right of explanation by either ordering a re-appraisal in accordance with the lawful appraisal method or making an inquiry into the appraiser.

1. As to the adoption of appraisal results (Defendant’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 3)

Since appraisal requires special knowledge and experience in order to determine certain matters, it is nothing more than using such knowledge and experience as a supplementary means for the determination. Thus, in a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, there are several different appraisal in conflict with the same facts, and insofar as 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 recognizes a fact based on only a part of the appraisal, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless it is contrary to logical or empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu14919, Sept. 5, 1995; 2005Da11954, Feb. 28, 2008, etc.). Moreover, even one of the appraisal for the calculation of compensation for losses is illegal if there is an illegal cause, the appraisal result is illegal, but even if the appraisal is illegal, it may be considered in the judgment by extracting the portion that is not illegal among the appraisal contents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4574, Aug. 24, 1999).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while adopting the appraisal by the court appraiser, the court below deemed that there was error in the assessment of the gap in the catch condition rate of 493,274m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) among the land subject to expropriation in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter omitted), and calculated the reasonable amount of compensation by ex officio revising the gap rate.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below’s erroneous determination as to the contents of appraisal and ex officio correction to the extent that the measure of calculating the reasonable amount of compensation is against the logical and empirical rules cannot be deemed unlawful. The ground of appeal on this part is merely an independent opinion that, in a case where part of the appraisal by the court appraiser was erroneous, the court’s appraisal result is dismissed in whole or it is just to adopt the result of the appraisal by the court, and thus, cannot be accepted.

2. As to the assessment of roads and waterways on the current status (Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1)

A. As to the portion of the road in the present situation

(1) According to Article 70(2) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), the amount of compensation for land acquired for public works shall be calculated by taking into account the actual conditions of use as at the time of pricing, such as adjudication, as well as objective situations by general methods. Article 26 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 427, Jan. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Rules”). Article 70(2) of the same Act provides that the land owner who was located in a site near a road site shall be deemed to have no more than 1/3 of the appraised value of the adjacent land, and the “private road” in this context refers to the land owner who was used as a road under the jurisdiction of the head of the competent Si/Gun/Ku at the time of the road construction permit:

In full view of the foregoing various provisions, in order to consider the land to be expropriated as a site for “de facto private road” and to assess the amount of compensation within 1/3 of the appraised value of neighboring land pursuant to the above regulations, the land to be expropriated must have the substance corresponding to the private road under the Private Road Act because it is provided for the general traffic connected to the general roads under the Road Act, etc., and further falls under any of Article 26(2)1 through 4 of the Rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du7007, Jun. 13, 2013).

(2) As part of the instant land, which is farmland, the Plaintiff, who is the landowner, voluntarily installed for the convenience of the said land, the lower court determined that it was lawful for the court appraiser to regard the said part of the instant land as a de facto private road and calculate the value of other conditions by 0.33.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted, the land of this case is an external farmland site located near the southwest-dong, Kimpo-dong, Hanpo-dong, Hanpo-do, where the land of this case is located in the southwest-do, and is formed by the "transfer" or the "responding". The plaintiff, who constructed a bank on the branch line of the Han River in the vicinity of the land of this case, constructed a bank on the branch line of the Han River, and opened a road in part of the land of this case for the convenience of cultivation after the transfer of the land of this case, etc., which is the desolate river site created by the inside the land of this case. In light of the surrounding environment and the developments leading up to the construction of the road of this case, it is not clear whether the road of this case,

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the part of the instant land constitutes a private road based on the present condition only on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and it did not exhaust all necessary deliberations by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the de facto private road.

B. As to the waterway portion on the current status

According to Article 26(3) of the Rule, a ditch site shall be assessed within 1/3 of the appraised value of the neighboring land, but it shall be assessed in accordance with the general method of land assessment as stipulated in Article 22 in respect of the waterway site for water use (excluding the waterway site installed by the landowner at the time of its establishment for the convenience of his/her own land).

In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court recognized that the part of the instant land is part of the instant land, which is farmland, and was a waterway for water supply installed by the Plaintiff, who is the landowner, for the convenience of the said land, and determined that the court appraiser’s calculation of the said part of the said land into 0.33 square meters by deeming it as a ditch is lawful.

Examining the contents of the above statutes and the evidence duly admitted, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the calculation of compensation for the waterway site or the misunderstanding of the legal principles.

3. As to the assessment of environmental conditions (Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 3)

The court below, on the ground that there is no evidence that the court appraiser's determination of the above heat is not legitimate in light of various environmental conditions factors, the court's appraisal of the environmental condition of the land of this case, such as sunshine and ventilation, natural environment, neighboring environment, supply and disposal facilities, risk and hate facilities, etc., the court below adopted the environmental condition assessment result of the court's appraiser on the land of this case on the ground that there is no evidence that the court appraiser's determination of the above heat is not legitimate.

The “Land Compensation Guidelines” established by the Korea Association of Property Appraisers is merely an internal standard set by the Korea Association of Property Appraisers, and thus does not bind the general public or the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du4620, Jun. 12, 2014). Thus, only the fact that the said guidelines are not applied does not constitute an illegal appraisal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du7295, Aug. 22, 2013).

In the same purport, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that farmland should be judged as an individual factor rather than an environmental condition, based on the guidelines for land compensation assessment, is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of compensation

4. Regarding the assessment of the conditions of catching (Defendant 2’s ground of appeal and Plaintiff 2’s ground of appeal)

A. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that it is lawful to determine that the method of calculating the numerical value of the land of this case by taking into consideration the situation in which the arm’s length price can be formed in order to calculate the appraised value of the land of this case, i.e., a standard demarcated land that would normally be traded (hereinafter “division calculation method”) in order to determine the appraisal value of the land of this case, in light of the size or expected transaction price, etc. as farmland of optical water, the area of which is 493,274 square meters, and thus, it is difficult to expect that the arm’s length price will be formed by being traded within a sufficient period in the ordinary land transaction market.

Furthermore, in order for a court appraiser to divide the land of this case into the standard size of demarcated land, it is reasonable to view that part of the land should be a road or waterway site. Thus, the court below calculated 11% of the decline in the value of the land resulting therefrom (hereinafter “reduction rate”) and assessed 19% of the decline in the value of the land taking into account road and waterway construction cost, design and survey permit cost, and other expenses as the heat of 6% under the conditions of demarcated land, 19% of the decrease in the value of the land taking into account the construction cost, construction cost, authorization and permission cost, and 2% of the low-term heat of 2%, and the value of the road and waterway as the site is not included in all of the remaining farmland, and there is no ground to view that the value of the site as the road and waterway can be separately included in the remaining farmland. As such, it is reasonable to view that there is 3% of the appraised value of the neighboring land as 1/33 or less of the appraised value of the land under Article 26 of the Rules 7.5% of the total appraisal and construction cost.

B. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The method of partition calculation adopted by a court appraiser is not to evaluate the overall price factors on the premise of a divided state, but it is merely the process of objectiveizing the conditions of demarcated land among individual factors by causing the degree of comparative standard and friendly, and considering the fact that the formation of a reasonable price according to supply and demand in a normal market is difficult, such method itself cannot be deemed unlawful. In addition, in the event of assessing the conditions of demarcated land by the method of partition, it is necessary to consider that the road or waterway site is still subject to expropriation necessary to divide the land of this case into the standard size of demarcated land.

In the same purport, the court below is just and acceptable to have determined that the value of the site should be reflected in the assessment of the demarcated condition on roads or waterways necessary for division, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation.

C. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

(1) Even if an appraisal is unlawful, the court may directly calculate the amount of reasonable compensation, such as taking into account the judgment after extracting the portion not unlawful among the appraisal content. However, such an ex officio amendment method is permissible to the extent that it has objectivity and rationality and does not go against the logical and empirical rules. Therefore, if there is an error in the appraisal, it is reasonable for the court to have the appraisal method conducted a sufficient examination by exercising its right of explanation by either ordering a re-appraisal in accordance with the lawful appraisal method or by making an inquiry to the

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, in comparison with the individual factors of the instant land, the court’s appraisal reflects the following facts: (i) applying the land compensation assessment guidelines attached Table 2 (Housing Zone); (ii) considering the land reduction conditions according to the division according to the method of calculation; (iii) considering the fact that the horizontal conditions of each parcel of land divided following the construction of the road are favorable; and (iv) using the gap rate of 0.33 on other conditions as to the road and waterway in the present condition in the court’s appraisal, the area larger than the area of the road and waterway portion in the present condition is required for the construction of the road or waterway at the time of division; and (v) considering the entire area necessary for the construction of the road or waterway in the present condition, the court’s appraisal reflects the fact that the area overlaps with the above condition as to the road and waterway portion in the present condition.

However, as seen earlier, the lower court adopted the appraisal result that: (a) in the event of assessing the conditions of a parcel of land in accordance with the method of calculation by dividing a road, the conditions of the individual parcel of land divided become more likely than the previous one; and (b) adopted the appraisal result, which reflects the size of the road or waterway portion in the present condition as a double reduction factor in other conditions and conditions, as to the area of the road or waterway portion in the present condition.

(3) Meanwhile, the court below revised ex officio the contents of the court appraisal, which did not reflect the value of the site as seen earlier, and reflected 1/3 of the appraised value of farmland, which is neighboring land, by evaluating the value of the site as the site for a ditch. In light of the fact that the main reason for assessing the conditions of a plot of land by the method of the division calculation is based on the premise that ownership is distributed by dividing it into the standard size of a plot of land and transferring it to each other, the site for a waterway to be installed at the time of the division constitutes “waterway site for a water supply,” and thus, it cannot be assessed in the same way as the site for a ditch.

(4) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of compensation, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby making a judgment.

5. Scope of reversal

According to the provisions of Article 64 of the Land Compensation Act, compensation for losses is not for each object subject to expropriation, but for each landowner or person concerned. Thus, if a person is dissatisfied with only a part of the objects subject to expropriation, he/she may institute an administrative litigation by asserting the grounds for objection only to that part. However, if the amount of compensation for some of the objects subject to administrative litigation is insufficient and the amount of compensation for other items is excessive, the amount of compensation for other items should be determined by adding up excessive and insufficient parts (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12597 delivered on January 20, 198, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the total amount of compensation by adding excessive and insufficient parts to the 15 parcels of land subject to the instant expropriation, on the ground that the amount of compensation for the instant land is insufficient and the compensation for the remaining 14 parcels of land is excessive.

The Plaintiff’s petition of appeal and appellate brief did not state the grounds of appeal as to the compensation for the land remaining 14 parcels of land in the judgment below, but in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in this case where the court below calculated compensation by allowing the use between items, it cannot be determined separately by items. Thus, the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment below should be reversed in its entirety.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the part against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)