(b) In calculating the amount of compensation for the expropriated land, where the reference land is selected as a unit of 3 square kilometers of land size, the scope of such reference land;

B. In the case of the preceding paragraph, if the standard land by land category is selected as a unit of 3 square kilometers of land size, the standard land to be assessed and the standard land selected as a unit of land subject to assessment shall be lawful as the standard land for the land subject to assessment, if the land subject to assessment and the standard land selected as a unit of approximately 1.95 kilometers in diameter

Article 29(3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989) provides that the standard price shall be determined by the Presidential Decree in order to publicly announce the target area, and that the arm's length price per unit area as of the date of the public notice of the target area shall be determined as of the date of the public notice of the reference area with respect to the reference land selected from among a group of lands which are generally recognized as having similar natural and social conditions, under the conditions as determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 48(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989) provides that the target area of the reference land shall be 1 square kilometer as the standard area of the reference land to be selected as a unit of 3 square kilometers if it is ordinarily similar to the land use, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions; therefore, the standard area of the reference land shall be determined within 197 square meters as of the standard area.

The court below held, based on its evidence, that a group of lands, including the land to be expropriated in the vicinity of the above land, shall be publicly announced as the area subject to the public notice of the standard price under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and that the land price as of February 20, 1986, which was re-public announced as of February 10, 1986, and as of February 20, 1986, the land price as of February 20, 1986, which was the basis of the judgment of this case, shall be determined as of February 10, 196, and that the land price as of March 18, 200, which was the basis of the judgment of this case, is the same as the land to be assessed, and that the land price cannot be a legitimate standard land price because the land use, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions cannot be recognized as ordinarily similar to the above land subject to public notice of the standard price as of February 16, 200.

However, in order for the land to be assessed and the reference land to be located within 3 square kilometers of a group of land area stipulated in the above related laws, it would be sufficient that the above two land were entered into the original site approximately 1.95 kilometers in diameter. In addition, according to the records, the land to be assessed in this case is the land category on the public register, the actual use of the land is the factory site, and the surrounding environment is scattered, and the land category of the reference land selected by Sam-dong and Sam-dong is the land category, the actual use of the land, and the surrounding environment is residential area, and the surrounding environment is a combination of factories. Therefore, the court below judged that the standard land selected by the above two appraisal agencies is unlawful on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, since it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the selection and scope of application of the reference land under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, or by failing to exhaust all deliberation on the eligibility of the reference land, it is obvious that such illegality affected the judgment, and therefore the judgment below's remaining ground of appeal is reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)