Article 10 (1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act provides that the land price at the end of the imposition shall be the aggregate value of the increases in normal land prices calculated in accordance with the comparative table from January 1 of the pertinent year to the end of the imposition based on the officially announced land price of the reference land which is the most similar to the land subject to imposition at the end of the imposition as at the end of the imposition. The reference land to determine the end price shall be the representative land price located in neighboring areas, which is the most similar to the land in use area, land category, land category, land use (actual use), surrounding environment, location, and other natural and social conditions, and in determining whether the officially assessed land price determined in accordance with the reference land price at the end of the imposition is maintaining a balance with the publicly announced land price of neighboring similar land (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu9096, Apr. 11, 1997; 200Du137137, Nov. 12, 2009).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the reference land price applied to the defendant's land and the plaintiff's assertion are similar to the reference land in this case's actual use and surrounding environment. However, in terms of road conditions, the plaintiff's assertion is similar to the reference land in this case's claim, and that the reference land price is similar to the land in Gwangju-gu, which is directly connected to the land in terms of specific use area, land category, actual use, location, construction time of above ground buildings, surrounding natural and social conditions, etc., the defendant selected the reference land price as reference land in calculating the above (location omitted) land price of this case's land as reference land. According to the court below's reasoning, the defendant selected the reference land price as reference land in this case's calculation of the reference land price as of July 1, 2011, which is similar to that of this case's land in this case's situation after the completion of the imposition of the development charges on the land in this case's case's land.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the selection of standard land price for the calculation of termination

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 Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)