2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Provisional execution may be carried out only one half of the cited amounts by plaintiff under paragraph (1).

(a) Authorization and announcement of implementation plans;

- Urban planning (Development of a monthly village park)

- No. 2002-74 of the Yangcheon-gu Public Notice on October 15, 2002

(b) Adjudication on expropriation on May 31, 2003 by local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City;

- Subject to accommodation: 51-10 Forest land in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (registration conversion on September 17, 2003, Plaintiff 13568/8920, Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4, respectively, and 1784/8920 equity shares on September 17, 2003, respectively; hereinafter referred to as “land 1”); 52 forest land in Gyeonggi-do (registration conversion on September 17, 2003, Plaintiff 1 owned on September 946-5, 2003; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff 2 land”); 53-6 forest land in Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul, and 2,083 square meters (on September 17, 2003, Plaintiff 1 owned on September 17, 2003).

- Time of expropriation: July 15, 2003

- An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation and a global appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”)

- Compensation: Each corresponding amount stated in the "compensation for Expropriation" in the separate sheet of compensation by the plaintiff;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 to 4, Gap evidence 27-4, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the adjudication on acceptance of the instant case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the adjudication of acceptance of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, the defendant shall pay the difference between the appraised value of each of the land of this case according to the result of entrustment of appraisal by the ASEAN appraisal corporation (hereinafter “court appraisal”) of this court (hereinafter “court appraisal”) and the amount of the adjudication of acceptance of this case.

(a)the selection of comparative standards;

1) Each of the instant lands belongs to a general residential area. The purpose of the instant village neighboring park creation project was to directly implement the instant village neighboring park creation project, and the specific use area was incorporated into a park site, which is an urban planning facility, and the specific use area was changed to a natural green area. Therefore, in calculating compensation for losses for each of the instant lands, it should not be assessed by assuming that there is no limitation under the public law, which is a park site, but the reference land within a general residential area, which is a general residential area before the alteration, should be selected and assessed as a comparative standard site. Nevertheless, the appraisal of expropriation was selected as a comparative standard site of each of the instant lands, which is located within a natural green area, and was incorporated into a park site, as a comparative standard site of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, 53-3 forest land and 3,074 square meters incorporated into a park site. Accordingly, the appraisal

2) In calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the land to be expropriated, one or more reference land or two or more reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question should be selected to make an appraisal on the basis of the officially announced value of such reference land. As such, in principle, two or more reference land shall be selected in the appraisal and assessment. However, the appraisal and assessment by selecting a comparison standard but

(B) Comparison of individual factors

Each of the lands of this case is the land, etc. in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul and one complex with 12 meters wide and medium, which are different lands owned by the plaintiffs. However, the appraisal of expropriation was made by mistakenly assessing that each of the lands of this case is linked to the surface (three day appraisal) and vertical (global appraisal) of the street conditions among the individual factors. In calculating the gap in other conditions, the appraisal was made by mistakenly evaluating that it was lower than the actual one.

(c)an amendment to other factors;

The appraisal of expropriation did not take into account all other factors such as the fact that the officially announced price was set excessively lower than that of neighboring land because each of the instant lands was incorporated into a park site, and that the inflation rate was reduced, and that each of the instant lands is a large slope unit land that can develop a large-scale site.

(2) The defendant's assertion

As the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City orders the head of the Gu to change a specific use area from a general residential area to a natural green area on February 12, 191, he prepared a basic urban planning pursuant to the provisions of Article 10-2 of the former Urban Planning Act and changed the specific use area pursuant to the above basic urban planning pursuant to the basic urban planning. Since urban neighboring parks are allowed to be installed in residential areas pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of the Urban Park Act and Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of Article 4 of the same Act, there is no need to change the specific use area into a natural green area for the creation of green green area. Since five years and ten months have elapsed from the time the above specific use area was changed and the main purpose of each of the land of this case was to develop a rural green area, the change of the specific use area of this case is no longer than 51% of the basic urban planning formulation guidelines and promotion plan to the head of the Gu on February 12, 191, and the development project of the rural green area of this case was selected for the purpose other than green area development project.

Even if the specific use area of each land of this case is deemed a general residential area as alleged by the plaintiffs, in selecting the comparative standard land, the land category within the general residential area is forest land, and there is a standard land adjacent to the land of this case, Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and the natural forest land use status is consistent with the Gangseo-gu adjacent to each land of this case, but the court appraiser erroneously selected the standard land for detached land whose use status is completely different from each land of this case as a comparative standard

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) Each of the instant lands is located near the south-west apartment located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the vicinity is the general housing area where apartment houses, detached houses, multi-household houses, forests, etc. are concentrated, and is adjacent to the south-dong roads, making vehicle access easy and most of them are used as natural forests.

(2) Examining the process of modifying each of the instant land’s specific use area, as follows.

① On April 29, 1966, the first unit of each of the instant lands was changed to a general residential area under Article 2371 of the Public Notice of the Construction Book. On August 6, 1971, the Seoul Urban Planning Park was not publicly announced as a result of the construction decision of August 6, 1971, and the cadastral approval was not publicly announced. The Seoul Urban Planning Park was invalidated on October 28, 1976 by the Seoul Urban Planning Park Public Notice No. 279, and the Seoul Urban Planning Park was modified and determined on July 9, 1977 as the Seoul Urban Planning Park under Article 138 of the Public Notice of the Construction Book, and was pointed out as an urban planning facility (park) on August 22, 1978.

② On February 12, 1991, the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Government instructed the head of each Gu to formulate a basic urban planning plan and a promotion plan, and the defendant, around February 14, 1994, prepared a basic urban planning plan to change a special-purpose area which is unreasonably partitioned by parks, etc. within a general residential area to a natural green area in accordance with the actual purpose, and proposed the Yangcheon-gu Urban Planning Committee on June 14, 1996 the items to change the specific-purpose area of the urban planning to a natural green area according to the said basic urban planning plan, and accordingly, changed to a natural green area under Article 197-11 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Notification on January 22, 199

③ Thereafter, the plan for the creation of urban planning facilities (park) was determined on November 22, 2001 by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2001-374 on November 22, 2001, and was pointed out as the Yangcheon-gu Notice No. 2001-87 on December 31, 2001 and approved on October 15, 2002, the implementation plan for the instant village village village village park creation project was approved.

(3) The process of altering the specific use area of land No. 1 among each of the instant land is as follows.

(1) On December 16, 1996, a certificate of land use planning issued by December 16, 1996, the land use plan of 8,920 square meters prior to subdivision is a general residential area and part of it was incorporated into a park site. However, a certificate of land use plan issued by July 28, 2003, which was the first part of the land incorporated into the said park site, is indicated as a natural green area and the first part of the land is incorporated into a park site.

② On August 23, 2000, the land was divided into the part not incorporated into the said park site among the land No. 1 in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on August 23, 2000, and the area was changed to 282 square meters on September 25, 200, and on September 29, 200, the land was converted to 29-50 forest land and 289 square meters on September 29, 200. The above 29-50 forest land and 289 square meters was revoked on May 30, 201, depending on the division of 29-53 forest and 46 square meters in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 30, 201, the land category was changed to the site on June 7, 200, and the land category was combined with the land of Yangcheon-gu 29-51 forest and 201 square meters on June 1, 2002.

③ In addition, on June 20, 2002, the said 29-53 square meters of forest land was changed to a site, and the land category was deleted by combining it with 29-30 square meters, 271 square meters on the same day on the same day, and after the merger, the certificate of land use plan dated October 10, 2003, which was issued on October 10, 2003, the specific-use area is divided into Class 1 general residential area (a determination to change a common residential area) and Class 2 general residential area.

(4) The appraisal of expropriation is a case where the public law restrictions (park sites) imposed on each of the instant lands directly for the purpose of implementing the relevant public project, and therefore it must be evaluated as not subject to such restrictions. Therefore, the selection of comparative standard land should also be the standard land in the natural forest state within the natural green-belt not incorporated into the park site. However, on the ground that the standard land is not located in the surrounding area, the comparative standard land of each of the instant lands was selected as a specific use district of 53-3 forest land and 3,074 square meters in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, in a natural green area (park: a natural forest: a natural forest, a road traffic, a road traffic: a heavy slope: a shooting slope, and a square bridge completion slope: a land price of each of the instant lands: a 80,000,000 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “one standard land price”). However, the appraisal of expropriation was assessed to be subject to restrictions in the public law due to the inclusion of administrative conditions among individual factors in the instant land.

(5) On the other hand, the court’s appraisal, on the ground that the specific use area of each of the instant lands was changed from a general residential area to a natural green area, and that the land was incorporated into a park site was directly intended for the implementation of the instant village neighboring park creation project, was selected as a comparative paper by comparing it with the standard land of each of the instant lands, the standard land located within a general residential area prior to the alteration into a general residential area prior to the alteration and is not restricted to a park site, the standard land of Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, which is the standard land area in a state not limited to a park site. (A) The court’s appraisal was selected as a comparative paper by comparing it.

In addition, the court appraisal calculated the gap rate of individual factors of each of the lands of this case as 0.49, and calculated the revised rate of 1.20 to 1.20 in consideration of the case where the land of this case 231-73 is traded in 1,745,000 won per square meter around May 2003.

(6) Meanwhile, the joint ownership of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 4, 946-6 Forest land in Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, 946-6 Forest land 5,451 square meters, and 946-8 Forest land 3,074 square meters, which are the owners of Nonparty 1, were incorporated into the instant village village village park creation project. On February 14, 2004, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Expropriation Committee calculated the amount of compensation based on the appraisal of expropriation that selected the reference land within the green-belt area as a comparative standard for comparison with the reference land within the green-belt area. However, upon filing an objection by the Plaintiffs, the Central Land Expropriation Committee, on August 24, 2004, determined and publicly announced the above land within the general residential area as a planned park site and changed the specific-use area into a natural-belt area to a natural-belt area.

In addition, on April 19, 2005, the Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection to increase the amount of compensation based on the appraisal of objection selected as a comparative standard for reference land within general residential areas for the above reasons in the adjudication procedure of objection against land 946-4, 946-16, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9-1, 2, 3, 12, 13-1, 2, 3, 14-1, 2, 15-1 through 4, 40, 49-1, 40, 49-1, 11 through 18 of evidence Nos. 11 through 18 of evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9-3, and 13-1, 13-2, 14-2, 2, 15-1 through 4, 40-1, 2-2

[Insufficient Evidence] No. 20-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 21-1, 4

C. Determination

(1) First, we examine whether the instant expropriation ruling was erroneous in selecting a comparative standard for each of the instant lands.

(A) Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor provides that land subject to restrictions in public law shall be assessed according to the condition under which such restrictions are limited, and where the restrictions in public law directly aim at the implementation of the relevant public works, the said restrictions shall be assessed by considering the status in which there is no restriction. Article 23(2) provides that a land, the specific-use area or specific-use district of which has been altered for the purpose of the implementation of the relevant public works, shall be assessed based on the specific-use area or specific-use district before the alteration. Therefore, in calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land subject to restrictions in public law, if the restrictions in public law are directly aim at the implementation of the relevant public works, the said restrictions shall be assessed according to the condition under which they are not subject to such restrictions, and if there

In addition, in light of the impact of land subject to expropriation on the price formation of land in an urban planning zone, it is reasonable to select specific use area as the standard land to be applied to the same land unless there are other special circumstances, and even if there are some differences in the standard land and the situation of use or surrounding environment of the land, such differences in the standard land and the surrounding environment can be considered as ebbbbrance, such as analysis of regional factors or individual factors, and the selection of the standard land cannot be deemed unlawful merely because the standard land is considerably far away from the land subject to expropriation.

(B) According to the above facts, each of the instant lands was originally a general residential area, but the Seoul Urban Planning Park was decided to modify the Seoul Urban Planning Park under Article 138 of the Construction Division’s notification on July 9, 197, in order to develop a whole zone of each of the instant lands as a park area (the Seoul Urban Planning Park was decided as of August 6, 1971, but the cadastral approval was not publicly notified as of October 28, 1976), and the special residential area was changed to a natural green area on January 22, 1997, and thereafter the development project was implemented as a part of the instant village village park development project executed by the Defendant.

Therefore, even if the period between the above Seoul Urban Planning Park change decision and the change of specific use area and the approval of the village village park creation project of this case is a long-term period of time, the above Seoul Urban Planning Park change decision is a series of measures to implement the village village park creation project of this case. The above Seoul Urban Planning Park change decision is a series of measures to change the specific use area to a natural green-belt district of each of the land of this case, and the above change of specific use area to a green-belt district of this case is a change decision of the Seoul Urban Planning Park, and is made for the direct purpose of the implementation of the village village village park creation project of this case. Thus, the designation of the above park zone and the change of use to

Thus, although the specific use area of each land of this case shall be deemed a general residential area and it shall be evaluated as not limited to a park site, it is inappropriate to select the reference land of this case, which is located in a natural green area and incorporated into a park site, as a comparative standard for each land of this case. Ultimately, the expropriation ruling of this case, which determined the amount of compensation based on the evaluation of the above expropriation ruling, is unlawful in this respect. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the selection of comparative standard was erroneous is justified (if the plaintiffs' appraisal of expropriation was erroneous in the selection of comparative standard for the individual factors, correction of other factors, etc.).

(2) On the other hand, the standard land No. 2 selected by the court appraiser as the comparative standard land of each of the instant lands is appropriate since the land category and use status are different from each of the instant lands, or specific use area are the same as a general residential area, and the aforementioned comparative standard land is not limited as a park site. Thus, the court shall calculate compensation for losses for each of the instant lands in accordance with the result of the

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the use status of each land of this case is natural forest, and the use status of the reference land of the second reference land is detached housing, so the court appraisal that selected the reference land of this case as comparative standard land of this case is wrong. However, even if there are different points in the use status of the reference land of this case as alleged by the defendant, such points can be considered in the comparison comparison of each land of this case, and thus, it is difficult to view that the court appraisal has any error of selecting the reference land of this case as the comparison standard land of each land of this case. In addition, in the case of the land of this case, the use status of the reference land of this case is natural, but it is inappropriate to regard it as the comparison standard of each land of this case as the land of this case because it is incorporated into the park site of Yangcheon-gu, Seoul as the comparative standard

(3) Therefore, the reasonable compensation for each of the instant lands shall be the amount indicated in the “court appraisal amount” column in the annexed land list, and the reasonable compensation for the Plaintiffs’ shares shall be the amount indicated in the “justifiable compensation amount” column in the annexed land list by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 5% per annum from July 16, 2003 to June 3, 2005, which is the day following the day of this decision, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment from the next day of this decision, to the day of this decision. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim is justified and acceptable.

[Attachment Form 1]

Judges Ansan-si (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-ho