The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act, the calculation of losses in the land expropriation shall be based on the value at the time of adjudication on expropriation, and shall be based on the reasonable price taking into account the transaction price of neighboring land, and Article 57-2 of the same Act provides for the calculation standards of compensation for losses and the provisions of Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land") shall apply mutatis mutandis except as otherwise provided for in this Act. Article 6 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides for the evaluation method of land subject to public law in addition to the standards stipulated in the Land Expropriation Act

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, since the Minister of Construction and Transportation publicly announced the standard land price under Article 29 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory as of December 12, 1979 with respect to the land including the land in this case owned by the plaintiff, the compensation for expropriation of the land in this case should be calculated by taking into account the overall circumstances of Article 29 (5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Expropriation of Land, but since the standard land price for investigating and assessing the arm's length price under Article 29 (3) of the same Act is not designated, the legitimate standard land price is not publicly announced in this case, and the calculation of the compensation amount is bound to be based on Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act. Meanwhile, since the land in this case was officially announced as a park scheduled site under the Urban Planning Act by the Construction Division as of November 11, 1982, the restriction of the above Act is not applied to the land subject to appraisal under Article 18-2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Expropriation of Public Law.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, the court below held that the defendant requested the appraisal of the land of this case to ○○ Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. and △△ Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. on the basis of the plaintiff's objection, and the average price of each appraised value is compensation, and that the land of this case is KRW 43,500 per square meter, KRW 41,500 per square meter, KRW 47,000 per square meter, and KRW 47,00 per square meter, and KRW 30 per square meter before ( Address 2 omitted) was assessed, but each appraisal Co., Ltd. was assessed on the premise that all of the land of this case was subject to public law regulations publicly announced as a park site as of November 11, 1982, and it is nothing more than the reasoning of the judgment below to criticize the previous appraisal standards as to the surrounding land without any special reasons.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)