1. As to the second ground for appeal

Based on its macro evidence, the court below found that the appraiser 1 and the appraiser 2 of the 1,00 certified public appraiser's office requested the appraisal of the land of this case were able to evaluate the point of time of appraisal of the land of this case as the current price of June 1, 198, near to the time of replotting disposition, in terms of locational conditions, surrounding environment, degree of use, utility, price level, etc. based on all appraisal data such as price formation data, but the appraisal data such as price level should be considered in terms of the Korean Appraisal Board's Land Price Survey Table (as of April 1, 198) and the price level on July 1, 1989. Based on this, the court below rejected the appraisal of this case by holding a land appraisal deliberation committee on two occasions after calculating the replotting amount, and imposing the liquidation amount to the plaintiff, etc. of this case. The court below determined that the appraisal value of the above land of this case is inappropriate for the defendant to raise the appraisal value of 00 or 300 of the appraisal value of the above land as the appraisal value of the plaintiff.

However, in light of Article 48-2(1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 30-2 of the same Enforcement Decree, Article 4, Article 9(2), Article 10(1)6 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 12 subparag. 4 of the same Enforcement Decree, Article 17 of the Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, etc., the price of land, which is the basis for liquidation money for replotting under the Land Readjustment Projects Act, shall be determined based on the officially announced value of one or more representative land, which is deemed to have similar utility value to the land, and the price shall be determined by comparing and comparing all factors affecting the objective value of the land such as the reference land and the land to be appraised, and the price of the land shall be determined by specifying each of the above appraisal factors in detail, and if it is difficult to determine the reasonable amount of compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu581, May 8, 190).

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand it to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)