(b) The standard time for evaluating the status of use in calculating the amount of compensation where the previous public project operator and the project operator are different in the expropriation and the purpose of expropriation is changed (=the time of adjudication of expropriation)

B. In the case of expropriation between the previous public project operator and the project operator in the case of expropriation for any purpose different from the previous one, the amount of compensation due to expropriation should be calculated on the basis of the current state of use of the land at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, and it does not need to be assessed at the time of incorporation into the previous public project.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 191); Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, the assessment or compensation at the time of the price based on the basic date shall be calculated on the basic date. Thus, even if the existing basic date is publicly announced at the time of adjudication of expropriation, if the new public announcement was made at the time of adjudication of expropriation, and the basic date is made before the date of adjudication of expropriation, it shall be reasonable to make an amount assessed on the basis of the newly published public announcement.

According to the records, the Minister of Construction and Transportation announced the officially announced land price in 1990, which was the basic date on December 30, 1989, on July 1, 1989, and later announced the basic date on April 30, 1990, which was the basic date, again on April 30, 1990, and also announced the basic date on January 1, 1990. On the other hand, the adjudication date on expropriation of the land in this case was February 27, 1990 and the objection date was October 26 of the same year. Accordingly, the amount of compensation should be determined on the basis of the officially announced land price in 190.

Nevertheless, the court below decided that the appraisal method of the original appraiser who calculated the compensation amount for the land of this case on the basis of the officially announced land price in 1989 was justifiable in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, it is obvious that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criteria for calculating compensation for losses, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore,

2. On the second ground for appeal

In calculating the amount of compensation for the land No. 1 of this case [No. 126/245 shares of 245m, Sinpo City, Gunpo City, Gunpo City, Gunpo City, Gunpo-si], the lower court recognized that, on the premise that the said land falls under the “land already implemented, and the compensation is not paid,” as stipulated in Article 6(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation and Compensation of Losses Act, at the time the said land was incorporated into a previous public project, the situation of use at the time when it was incorporated into a previous public project, and determined that the said land was calculated accordingly

However, as recognized by the court below, it is difficult to readily conclude that the land of the above 145 meters was incorporated into a road, and the remaining 126 meters (the land of this case) remains as owned by the plaintiff as it was acquired through consultation to use a specific part of the above 119 meters as a road. Thus, it is proved that the land of this case was incorporated into a road of the above 119 meters as a result of the construction of a road of the above 119 meters, and there is only the testimony of the non-party witness of the court below to the effect that the land of this case was incorporated into a road of this case from the plaintiff, and there is no clear evidence to support the above 245 meters, and it is also difficult for Si-Gun to consider that the land of this case was incorporated into a road of this case without consultation and the land of this case for the purpose of using it as a new site of this case (the land of this case should be incorporated into a new site of this case regardless of the previous 119 meters as a road of this case's expropriation of the previous land of this case.

Therefore, the court below's acceptance of the method of calculating the amount of compensation based on the above "the preceding" as appropriate is not sufficient or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating compensation for losses, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument that points this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)