(b) In cases where the standard land is determined on a three km unit pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (debate by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989), the scope

B. Article 48(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (defluence by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989) provides that the area subject to the selection of the reference land shall be 1 m2 per m2, and the area subject to the selection of the reference land shall be 3m2, if it is deemed that the land is similar to land use conditions, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions, it shall be 3m2, respectively. Thus, the reference land shall not be selected at least for land use conditions, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions, and if the land subject to expropriation and the reference land selected within approximately 1.95m in diameter, the reference land is legitimate as the reference land for the reference land.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On the first ground for appeal

In full view of the provisions of Articles 46 and 51 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989), Articles 18(1) and 20(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Ordinance No. 419 of May 21, 1987), the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall announce the scope of application of the standard land in the public notice of the standard land price at the same time, and the standard land price shall be applied to land within the scope of application in principle, so the eligibility of the standard land shall be deemed to be recognized only within the relevant scope of application (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8494, Jun. 13, 1989).

However, examining the location of the reference land, which is the standard land selected by the court below in accordance with the records, and the location of the land to be expropriated in Gangseo-gu Seoul and Gangseo-gu Seoul (No. 1 omitted) and Gangseo-gu Seoul (No. 2 omitted), as well as the location of the land to be expropriated in this case, it is not recognized that the land to be expropriated in this case is required within the scope of application of each reference land selected by the court below, and therefore the court below

On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 48 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the reference land shall be selected by dividing into five categories among the areas in which it can be classified into five categories, and it shall be subdivided into not more than Grade III according to the conditions or conditions of land use by divided land category. However, in an urban planning zone, the grade may be further subdivided in consideration of specific use area, land price conditions, etc., and according to subparagraph 3, one reference land shall be selected according to the classification by land category. This is a provision to the effect that it is defective to make the appropriateness of land value assessment by dividing the classes as far as possible in an area which may be subdivided according to the classification by land category.

However, there may be cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to subdivide the rating by land category depending on the region, and in such cases, it is possible to achieve the appropriateness of the appraisal of land value by adjusting the difference according to the grade by land category through land category, such as regional factors and individual factors, and thus, it is not unreasonable to divide the class of the standard land and determine the standard land accordingly. Therefore, the above provision shall be deemed an example provision for cases of an area which can be subdivided according to the grade by land category.

In this case where the reference land is not subdivided according to the grade by land category, the court below calculated a reasonable amount of compensation through the regional factors of the reference land selected and the land subject to the expropriation of this case and the fluences of individual factors, and thus, it can be deemed that the appraisal of the reference land was reasonable, as in the case where the reference land is subdivided according to the grade. Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the court below selected the reference land which is the basis for the assessment of this case from among the reference land not subdivided

On the third ground for appeal

Article 48 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989) provides that the area subject to the selection of the reference land shall be 1 m2 per m2, and the area subject to the selection of the reference land shall be 3m2, if it is deemed that the status of land utilization, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions are similar. Thus, the reference land shall not be selected as a group of lands within 3m2, which are generally recognized as being similar to those of other natural and social conditions, at least 1.95m2, and in this case, if the land subject to expropriation and the reference land selected as the original land are entered at least about 1.95m in diameter, the reference land shall be lawful as the reference land for the land subject to expropriation (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4697, May 11, 1990).

In accordance with the plaintiffs' assertion, since each reference land selected by the court below is located approximately 1.017km or 1.08km from the land subject to expropriation of this case, the decision of the court below that such reference land is a legitimate reference land is correct, and there is no illegality as pointed out otherwise.

The assertion is groundless.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)