[이의재결처분취소][공1996.1.15.(2),242]
[1] The method of collecting evidence in a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation in a case where there is a difference between the appraisal by an appraisal agency and the appraisal by a court appraiser only on the comparison of goods and others
[2] In a case where the evaluation of an agency, which made an objection by taking into account the two agencies' evaluations with respect to the expropriation of land on one parcel, is unlawful, the propriety of such adjudication is unlawful
[1] In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of compensation, each appraisal agency's appraisal and the court appraiser's appraisal are not illegal in the appraisal methods, and there is no other reason in the appraisal methods, and the remaining price assessment factors except for the category of goods, etc. are different in different opinions, but in a case where there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different difference in the appraisal results, taking one of the appraisal results belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court, as long as there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the description of goods, etc. of any one of them, taking one of them
[2] In a case where an objection is made by taking into account the two agencies' evaluations with respect to the expropriation of land on one parcel of land, such adjudication cannot be exempt from the law of illegality as long as the evaluation by one agency is illegal.
[1] Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [2] Article 42 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 2-10 (8) of
[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14779 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2161), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu834 delivered on November 12, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 104), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1078 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2624) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11681 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong191, 1297) (Gong191, 1512)
[Judgment of the court below]
Central Land Tribunal and one other (Law Firm Dong-gu Office, Attorneys Kim-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu5647 delivered on February 10, 1995
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In a lawsuit as to the increase or decrease of compensation, each appraisal agency's appraisal and the appraisal by the court's appraiser are not illegal in the appraisal methods, and there are different opinions in the appraisal methods except for the category of goods and vision, but in a case where there is no evidence to find any error in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different relationship with respect to the category of goods and vision, one of them is conducted at the discretion of the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below adopted the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below and rejected the appraisal by △△ appraisal corporation based on the judgment of the objection of this case, which had different evaluations as to individual factors in relation to the comparison with the 3,925 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter referred to as "the pertinent land") at port and port among the land subject to expropriation of this case among the land subject to expropriation of this case, and the appraisal by △△ appraisal corporation based on the judgment of this case. In light of the records, the process of the examination of evidence of the court below is proper, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as
In addition, as long as the appraisal by an agency is illegal as an appraisal by taking account of the two agencies' evaluations as to the land expropriation of one parcel into account, the appraisal by the agency is not illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3539, Apr. 23, 1991). In the same purport, the appraisal by ○○ Appraisal Corporation and △△ Appraisal Corporation based on the judgment of this case among the appraisal by ○○ Appraisal Corporation and △△ Appraisal Corporation based on the judgment of this case shall be classified as the items such as road and access conditions, demarcated land conditions, and road traffic conditions, etc., and shall be classified as the items such as road and access conditions, and it shall be judged that there is no error of law that did not establish any specific reasons for comparison with the individual factors, and as long as the appraisal by ○○ Appraisal Corporation and △ Appraisal Appraisal Corporation based on the judgment of this case is based on the above two appraisal by the court below, it shall not be justified in the determination of compensation amount in this case as well as in the determination of compensation amount.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)