[토지수용재결처분취소][공1990.3.1(867),473]
The land expropriation ruling disposition that did not reflect the normal transaction cases of similar neighboring land in the price assessment (negative)
If the appraisal by a joint office of a land appraiser fails to discover a normal transaction case of similar similar land and fails to reflect it in the price assessment, despite the fact that there was a normal transaction case of similar land in neighboring areas, the adjudication by the Land Expropriation Adjudication Authority based on the appraisal is illegal.
Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory
Plaintiff
Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu3903 delivered on July 3, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, where the standard land price is expropriated in an area where the standard land price is publicly announced, the standard land price shall be determined on the basis of compensation, but on the premise that the standard land price should be taken into account the use plan of the land in question, the rate of land price fluctuation in neighboring land unrelated to the area in question, the rate of increase in wholesale prices, the normal market price of neighboring similar land, and other matters, the court below held that the defendant's decision of this case was unlawful on the ground that the wholesale price increase was not reflected, and that there was no such consideration despite the fact that there was a sale case of neighboring similar land.
According to the records, as pointed out by the appellant, the wholesale price inflation rate is 0.99, and the appraised value is below that does not reflect the determination of the compensation amount of the land of this case, and thus the land owner does not suffer any disadvantage. Thus, the appraisal value of this case cannot be deemed unlawful because it did not reflect the wholesale price inflation in light of the arm's length price. However, even though there was a transaction case based on the normal sale price of similar neighboring land such as the time of original adjudication, it cannot be deemed unlawful because the two land appraisal companies' joint offices did not discover the case of normal transaction of similar neighboring land and did not reflect it in the price assessment.
Ultimately, the court below's measures that the defendant's decision disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground as above are justifiable, that is, the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal, namely, whether the reference land selected by the joint office of the above land appraiser is inappropriate as the reference land to be expropriated, without examining the grounds of appeal, dismissed the defendant's appeal, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant's own
Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)