B. Whether there is a case of appraisal of the land value under the above "A" and whether there is a transaction of similar lands in the appraisal of the land value, but the measure taken into account only the compensation example or heading of the neighboring land (negative)

C. The meaning of “normal market price of neighboring land” in paragraph (b) above

(d) The case holding that since the appraisal and assessment of housing consisting of the main building and its appurtenant building on the second floor above the ground with a difference in the utilization condition and heating facilities was uniformly applied to the entire building, and it cannot be seen as appropriate since specific grounds for calculation are not known as well as the unit price for the entire building;

B. In the appraisal of the land price in the above paragraph (a) above, considering the normal market price of the similar land in the neighboring land, it must be clearly identified whether there is a case of the similar land in the neighboring land and then the normal market price should be taken into consideration. Thus, it is illegal to consider only the compensation example or heading of the neighboring land without simply identifying whether there is a case of the similar land in the neighboring area.

(c) The term “normal market price of adjoining similar land” in paragraph (b) above means the price formed in ordinary transactions, not including development gains, but not formed in speculative transactions with respect to land identical or similar to land to be expropriated, such as land category, grade, land register, form, utilization status, specific use area, legal restrictions, etc. in the vicinity of the land to be expropriated.

D. The case holding that each of the above appraisal shall not be deemed an adequate assessment, on the ground that each of the appraisal based on the calculation of the compensation amount was uniformly applied to the entire building, on the ground that each of the appraisal based on the calculation of the compensation amount was made not only the same unit price for the entire building, but also the specific calculation basis is not clearly explained about the structure of the building, construction work executor, utilization status, management condition, life of the building, etc. but also the specific calculation basis is not known, on the ground that the above appraisal is not appropriate, since the above appraisal of the ground level and the underground floor of the main building among the housing consisting of the main building and the building of the second floor above the ground level and the underground floor are different due to the difference in the utilization condition and heating equipment.

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. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989), where a land appraiser or appraiser conducts an appraisal in order to calculate the amount of compensation for the expropriation of land in the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, the standard land price shall be determined based on the publicly notified standard land price, and where the same land price is selected within the area subject to the standard land price, the land price shall be determined on the basis of the standard land price of reference land which is deemed most similar to the land subject to expropriation, such as the location and utilization status of the land, surrounding environment, traffic conditions, and other natural and social conditions (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12018389, Mar. 189, 28984, 198885, 1987. 19, 1987. 1987. 1987. 1987.

The court below found that the land category of this case was actually used as a building site for housing, and was located within a general residential area in the urban planning, and that the land area of this case was composed of a small-scale housing site which was built as a stairs-type in the slope of the westwest at the bottom of the Yongsansan, centering on the above land, and that the remaining is adjacent to the river area in the south, and that the land is a pure housing site located in the middle-dong and connected to the river. The appraiser 1 of the court below acknowledged that there was no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the selection of the land in light of the above facts-finding principles as to the appraisal and assessment of the land in light of the records, since the land category, grade and actual use of the land of this case are similar to the land of this case and the ( Address 1 omitted) land of this case, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appraisal and assessment of the land of this case for reasons that the land is similar to the land of this case from natural and social conditions and that of this case are adjacent to the above.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act, Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price publicly notified, but it shall be calculated on the basis of the amount appraised in consideration of the land use plan of the land in question under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes from the date of public announcement of the standard land price to the date of determination of the compensation amount, or the price fluctuation rate of neighboring land in question, wholesale inflation rate, normal market price of neighboring land and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, if a land appraiser or appraiser conducts an appraisal of land price to calculate the compensation amount for the expropriation of land in the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, it shall be based on the publicly notified standard land price, but it shall be determined that the price of neighboring land should be calculated on the basis of the price calculated on the basis of all prices calculation factors in the former Act Article 29(5) and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

The court below held that among the appraisal reports prepared by two joint land appraisers' offices which are the basis for calculating the amount of compensation for the objection of this case, the normal transaction level of the neighboring land is KRW 350,000 or KRW 400,000 per square meter without any basis. However, since it is apparent that the above amount is not based on actual transaction cases because it is not mentioned at all as to the transaction cases of similar neighboring land, it is not clear that the above amount is not based on the actual transaction cases. Thus, without clarifying the transaction cases of neighboring land, it cannot be viewed as taking into account only the price of neighboring land. Since the △△△ Land Appraisal Joint Office did not clarify the transaction cases of neighboring land and only the head of neighboring land, each of the above appraisal shall not be deemed a legitimate act in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, each of the above appraisal is adjacent to the land of this case, and there is no reasonable ground for finding that there is no error in the judgment of the court below that there is no reasonable ground for finding the transaction price of neighboring land as a reasonable transaction price in light of the evidence.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The court below held that each appraisal of the building of this case consists of the main building of the second floor above the ground floor of this case which is a house and the building used as kitchen, warehouse, kitchen, etc., and that the unit price per square meter is different due to the difference in the use condition and heating facilities of this building, and that there is a difference in the structure and materials of this building in the unit price. Each appraisal of the joint office of two land appraisers, which is the basis for calculating the amount of compensation for this case, applied the same unit price uniformly to the entire building of this case, and that the specific calculation basis of the building is not known even though considering the structure, work executor, re-use condition, management condition and life of the building of this case, since it cannot be seen that each appraisal of this case is appropriate, while evaluating the amount of compensation for the building of this case, in violation of the provisions of the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act, it cannot be viewed that the appraisal of this case is separate from the appraisal of this case's 80th floor and the appraisal of this case's 20th floor and the appraisal of this case's 40th floor.

4. 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)