The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (hereinafter “Public Notice Act”); Article 5 of the Addenda of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991; hereinafter “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Jul. 1, 1989; hereinafter “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and Article 5 of the Addenda of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, in a case where an appeal is made after December 30, 199.

Nevertheless, in calculating the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land to be expropriated in this case, which was subject to a ruling of expropriation on October 19, 1989 and a ruling of objection on April 18, 1990, the court below calculated the amount of compensation for losses according to the price at the time of expropriation of the land in this case, which is recognized as a result of appraisal by the non-party, who appraised based on the previous land price, without based on the officially announced land price publicly announced as of July 1, 1989, the basic date was not based on the officially announced land price publicly announced as of July

However, according to the above appraiser's appraisal result, the above appraiser appraised the price at the time of expropriation of the land of this case based on the officially announced price separately from that at the time of expropriation of this case based on the previous land price as above, and it can be acknowledged that the price was lower than the price based on the standard land price. Since the above appraiser's appraisal is deemed legitimate in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above error committed by the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Ultimately, we cannot accept the argument to criticize this point.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below recognized the fact that the land of this case is a land category on the public register, but actually used as mentblue manufacturing place from February 1987. The court below recognized the fact that the actual use of the land of this case is miscellaneous. According to relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law that found the fact without any ground like the theory in the judgment below, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law that found the above actual use of the land of this case, such as theory, is a temporary use under Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Loss Compensation Act and Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Article 6 (1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, or it cannot be seen that the above actual use of the land of this case is

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)