[토지수용재결처분취소][공1989.5.15.(848),684]
Whether only the land appraiser can appraise the land within the notified area (negative)
Although Article 29-2(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that a land appraiser shall be placed in order to evaluate the purchase or expropriated land and other rights within the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, the court does not necessarily require a land appraiser to be designated in the examination procedure of an administrative litigation case requesting cancellation of a judgment on cancellation of land expropriation.
Article 29-2 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu415 Decided January 24, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu128 Decided December 8, 1987
Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1000 delivered on December 30, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney
A. According to Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, where land is expropriated within an area for which the standard price is publicly announced, the amount of compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the standard price publicly notified, but it shall be based on the amount appraised by taking into account the land use plan of the land in question, the rate of land price increase, the normal market price of neighboring similar land, and other factors
B. For the following reasons, the judgment of the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the ruling on the objection of this case made by the defendant as of September 4, 1984 on the ground that the ruling of this case was unlawful.
In other words, when the defendant makes a ruling of expropriation of the land of this case within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, it was requested to a new land appraiser's joint office and Hansung land appraiser's joint office to appraise the price as of April 17, 1984, which was the date of the ruling of expropriation. The above two evaluators selected the land site of Dongjak-gu Seoul as standard price ( Address 2 omitted), and did not explain any terms and conditions of selection as standard land price, the standard price of the land of this case as of August 21, 1978 is KRW 350,00 per square day. The standard price of the land of this case as of August 21, 1978 was 250% per square day from that time until April 17, 1984, 250% of the rate of land price of 250% of the total land price of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 257% of the rate of increase, 200 won per 30% per 50% per 60% of the above land price of neighboring land (hereinafter).
However, in full view of the appraisal result of the Nonparty’s appraiser’s appraisal, the Nonparty is bound to take into account the following factors: (a) in assessing the price of the instant land at the time of April 17, 1984; (b) in consideration of the fact that the surrounding condition of the instant land is adjacent to the road and that there is a commercial zone changed with the market on the north north; (c) (iv) the site is similar to the instant land; (d) (v) the lower court’s written judgment clearly states that there is a clerical error, but it is obvious that the standard price of the said land at the time of August 21, 1978 is 430,00 won per square day; and (e) the standard price at the time of the said land at the time is 264% until April 17, 1984; and (e) there is no reasonable difference between the neighboring land and the neighboring land at least 30% of the appraisal price of the instant land; and (e) there is no reasonable difference between the land and the adjacent land at least 2000 meters of the standard price of appraisal.
C. Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the record, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no reason to discuss the judgment below on the ground that there is no error of law by erroneous determination of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, inconsistent reasoning, or lack of reason (the grounds of appeal include the assertion that the ( Address 1 omitted) site selected as reference land by the non-party as reference land is located at a change of 12 meters wide away from the land of this case, and that there is no completely similarity with the land of this case. However, it is clear that this argument is limited to ( Address 1 omitted) the location of the site.
2. Determination on the second ground of appeal by the defendant's attorney
Article 29-2 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that "a land appraiser shall be appointed to conduct the appraisal and assessment of the standard land price under the provisions of Article 29 and the appraisal and assessment of the land to be purchased or expropriated within the area where the standard land price is publicly notified." However, if the court finds it necessary to appraise the price of the land to be expropriated in the administrative litigation proceedings claiming the cancellation of the adjudication on the objection against the adjudication on the land expropriation, it is not necessarily required to designate the land appraiser as an appraiser. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the court below's designation of the non-party as an appraiser registered under the Act on the Appraisal and Evaluation is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu128, Dec.
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)