1. In assessing the amount of compensation for the expropriation and use of land, all the factors for calculation cited by the relevant statutes shall be considered in detail and comprehensively, and an appraisal report for this purpose shall state the factors in a daily statement even if all the detailed factors for calculation are not shown to the detailed part of the factors for calculation or numerically indicate the factors affecting the assessment, and shall state the factors in a specific and clear manner, and shall state an explanation to the extent that the details and degree of consideration for each factor can be objectively obtained (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2727, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.). The same shall apply to an appraisal report, considering that it is reasonable to take into account the compensation precedents, reflecting it as the factors for calculating the amount of compensation. Accordingly, the appraisal report shall state the factors for calculation, such as the contents of the appraisal by comparing the individual factors for the land subject to appraisal, which are subject to appraisal. Therefore, it should be deemed unlawful to calculate the amount of compensation based on the appraisal report that does not specify the above matters.

2. Examining evidence and records, such as the statement in the appraisal report prepared by the Nonparty who employed the appraisal commission result (No. 505 of the record, No. 2) in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion to the same purport is acceptable, since only the method the Plaintiff asserts is not necessarily unlawful in calculating the amount of compensation through the amendment process of “other factors.” However, the method of considering the compensation precedents taken by the appraiser is the method of applying the correction rate, which is, first of all, after calculating the price of the land based on the officially announced land price of the comparative standard land, the method of calculating the amount of compensation as the “other factors” to consider the compensation precedents as the “other factors”. However, considering the structure of the formula, it becomes the direct basis for calculating the amount of compensation regardless of the comparison standard. Accordingly, the aforementioned appraisal method can be sufficiently used to compare the land and the land subject to compensation with the appraisal report, and there is no specific difference in the value of each individual land subject to compensation, such as the point at which the appraisal rate is objectively calculated based on the comparison standard factors.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the appraisal by the appraisal report as above is merely a method of appraisal of land expropriation compensation amount, and thus cannot be deemed unlawful. Based on this, the lower court’s measure that calculated the compensation amount of the instant land is also illegal. The allegation in the grounds of appeal is deemed to contain an error of law by the said appraiser’s appraisal method, and it is also deemed that the lower court’s allegation in the grounds of appeal contains the purport of arguing that it is erroneous for the lower court to accept the illegal commission result as to the consideration of the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)