[토지수용재결처분취소][공1993.9.1.(951),2161]
In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, where there is a difference in the result of appraisal as the appraisal by an appraisal agency and the appraisal by a court appraiser are different only with respect to the comparison of goods and others, the method of collection.
In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of compensation, in case where the appraisal by each appraisal agency and the appraisal by the court appraiser are not illegal in the appraisal methods, and there is no other reason in the appraisal methods, and there is a difference in the appraisal results (the appraised value of the land to be expropriated) due to a somewhat different relationship between the appraisal method and the appraisal method except for the comparison of compensation, in which case the appraisal by the court appraiser is based on the appraisal methods, it is within the discretion of the fact-finding court to allow each appraisal to take part in the appraisal, unless there is any evidence to prove that there is any error in the appraisal contents of the property comparison
Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act
Plaintiff 1 and 2 plaintiffs, Counsel for the defendant-appellee
Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu24382 delivered on August 19, 1992
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The court below determined that the appraisal method of the Japanese appraisal corporation and the Korean appraisal corporation, which used as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation in the instant objection, is legitimate by comparing the appraisal method by specifically specifying the factors affecting the objective value of the land, such as road accessibility, surrounding environment, location, contact conditions, urban planning matters, etc. In conducting the comparison of the goods and reference land of each of the instant land and reference land. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of compensation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for discussion.
As in the case of this case, in case where both the appraisal by each appraisal agency and the appraisal by a court appraiser, which form the basis of the judgment on the increase or decrease of compensation, are not illegal in the appraisal methods, and there is no illegality in the appraisal methods, and there is a difference in the appraisal result (the appraised value of the land to be expropriated) due to a somewhat different relation with the appraisal, even though there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the appraisal contents, any of the appraisal is within the discretion of the fact-finding court.
Although there are somewhat inappropriate expressions in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below adopted the appraisal by each appraisal institution which served as the basis for the judgment of the case and rejected the appraisal by the original appraiser. In light of the records, as the court below pointed out in the process of the examination of evidence and fact-finding, it cannot be said that there was an error of law such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of the legal principles, and thus, it cannot be accepted
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)