[토지수용재결처분취소][공1993.8.1.(949),1902]
The case holding that the amount of compensation for losses should be calculated pursuant to Article 6-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss of Land, not Article 6 (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation for Loss of Land, etc., but Article 6-2 (2) of the same Act
The case holding that the amount of compensation for losses should be calculated pursuant to Article 6-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Losses, not Article 6 (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Losses, in the case of land which is naturally roadized, not through
Articles 6(7) and 6-2(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss
Supreme Court Decision 90Nu964 delivered on October 25, 1991 (Gong1991,2851) 92Nu4833 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1993,125) 92Nu2653 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong193,1303)
Plaintiff
Central Land Tribunal and 1 other Defendants (Law Firm Tae & Yang, Attorneys Park Woo-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu16589 delivered on October 9, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
The court below: (1) it was divided into 123 square meters prior to March 20, 1953 and 12 square meters prior to the date of the instant land ( Address 2 omitted); (2) the instant land was actually used for the passage of neighboring residents connecting the daily road from Sejongdong in the past or for the attending school of the king People's School in the vicinity of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, taking into account the fact that the instant land was actually removed from the said site to the 6th anniversary of the expansion and expansion of the site of the said school by the residents of the said 1958, the Plaintiff’s land development project was actually removed from the said site to the 123th ground of the said road development project; and (2) it was not deemed that the land category of the instant land was de facto converted from the 9th anniversary of the instant land to the 1958th anniversary of the instant land’s use of the said site; and (3) it was not deemed that the land category was de facto converted from the road to the 4th anniversary of the instant land.
In light of relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of a private road or a non-compensation site, which is found to be erroneous by violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and there is no reason to
Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)