2. The inside00;

3. Kim 00

4. Kim 00

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff confirms that the remaining Defendants are not obligated to pay compensation for losses.

(a) Authorization and announcement of implementation plans;

-urban planning facility project (development of a monthly village park);

- With January 5, 2004, No. 2003- 117, February 25, 2004 of Yangcheon-gu Public Notice No. 2004- 13(b) of the Seoul Local Land Tribunal on June 19, 2004

- Subject to confinement: A person who owns Acheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00 square meters of 3,34m (hereinafter referred to as "the first land"), a square meters of 46m of 00 forest land (hereinafter referred to as "the second land") in the same 00m of 25m of 00 to 25m of 25m of co-ownership (Defendant Kim 009/83, defendant Kim 000 134/883; hereinafter referred to as "third land") in the same 00 forest land in the same 00 forest and 46m of 100 forest land (hereinafter referred to as "the second land"), defendant Kim 00 and Kim 00;

- Time of expropriation: August 7, 2004

- An appraisal corporation: a national appraisal corporation and a large appraisal corporation;

-Compared standard site: 946 - 8 forest land 3,069 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "A standard land") in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government within a natural green area (park)

- Compensation for losses: 548, 943, 100 won for land set forth in 1, 7, 573, 900 won for land set forth in 2, 9, 495,00 won for land set forth in 3

C. The Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Land Expropriation Committee")'s ruling on April 19, 2005 - An appraisal corporation: future appraisal corporation and the Pacific appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "appraisal")

-Compared standard site: 138 - 2 forest land in Yangcheon-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government 138 - 15,570 square meters (the future appraisal; hereinafter referred to as "CStandard land") in a general residential area, and 315 - 10 - 225 m (the Pacific appraisal; hereinafter referred to as "D standard land")

- Contents of adjudication: Each of the corresponding amounts stated in the column of "compensation for adjudication in the attached Form Nos. 1, 608, 821, 700 won for land No. 1, 22, 197, 300 won for land No. 2, 300 won for land No. 3, 15, 943, and 740 won for each increase (each of the corresponding amounts stated in the column of "compensation for adjudication in the attached Form No. 00, 300 for

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 27 and 28 each entry

2. Determination on the main safety defense of the Defendant Central Inquiry Agency

A. Defendant Central Land Tribunal filed a lawsuit against Defendant Central Land Tribunal, even though only the Defendant, who is the owner of each land of this case, should be designated as the Defendant pursuant to Article 85(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”). As such, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Therefore, in the case of an administrative litigation as to the increase or decrease of compensation under Article 85 (2) of the Public Works Act, if the person who files the lawsuit is the project operator, the defendant in the administrative litigation over the increase or decrease of compensation is excluded from the defendant in the administrative litigation over the increase or decrease of compensation by prescribing only the landowner or person concerned who is the project operator, who is the ruling authority. However, as seen later, it is clear to seek revocation on the ground that this part of the lawsuit against the defendant's soil is not seeking an increase or decrease of compensation but it is illegal due to procedural defects.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant objection was unlawful on the grounds as delineated below, and sought revocation of the instant objection against the Defendant Jung-gu, and sought confirmation that the remainder of the Defendants did not have the obligation to pay increased compensation for losses in the instant objection ruling. (1) The instant judgment procedure is unlawful.

The 100 members of the Defendant Central Land Tribunal, as a certified public appraiser of the Fladar appraisal corporation, is the land within the same business district as this case, 50 forest land in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, 451 and 1 land. < Amended by Act No. 7204, Feb.

8. 24. 24. Preparation of an appraisal report, which served as the basis of the judgment of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff submitted an application for challenge against 100, but participated in the decision of the objection of this case. This constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's right to receive fair judgment and a violation of due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

(2) The comparison standard area of each of the lands in this case was changed from a general residential area to a natural green area as the specific use area of each of the lands in this case was changed from February 12, 191 to a general residential area. On April 20, 1992, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City instructed the head of the Gu to change the specific use area in accordance with the guidelines for establishment of the basic urban planning and the promotion plan under Article 10-2 of the former Urban Planning Act, and changed it as one of the unreasonable adjustment of specific use areas that do not comply with the current status based on the above basic urban planning. Since urban parks are allowed to be installed within residential areas pursuant to Article 4 of the Urban Park Act and Table 4-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, it was not necessary to change the specific use area to a natural green area. Accordingly, the alteration of the specific use area of the village in this case, other than the urban planning that was conducted before the change of the above specific use area, was not possible by applying the proviso to the above general use area of the village in this case.

(B) Other factors are 10 m3 per 84.18 to 114.79% of the land of this case, which is 50 m4 per cent of the total land of this case, and its development is not possible in excess of 5 per cent of the average appraisal standards of land under the relevant laws and regulations (51 per cent of the total number of standing timber water) and 50 per cent of the total number of 10 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 14 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of 10 per cent of the total number of 5 per cent of the total number of land, and other factors of appraisal are not per se.

B. (1) Article 57(1) of the Public Works Act provides that a member of the Land Tribunal who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be allowed to attend a meeting of the relevant Land Tribunal; (2) a project operator, landowner, or person concerned; (3) a project operator, landowner, or person concerned; and (4) a project operator, landowner, or person concerned is a corporation under subparagraph 3; and (2) a project operator, landowner, or person concerned may file an application for challenge with a member, stating the reasons therefor, if it is difficult to expect the fair deliberation or resolution; and (3) a member falls under paragraph (1) or (2) a member may voluntarily abstain from the deliberation or resolution of the relevant case.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 29-1 and evidence Nos. 46, 100, a member of the defendant Central Land Appraisal Corporation, is a certified public appraiser belonging to the defendant Central Land Appraisal Corporation, who is a member of the defendant Central Land Appraisal Corporation, prepared a written appraisal on August 24, 2004, which served as the basis for the ruling of the plaintiff's objection against each of the lands in the same business district as each of the lands in this case, including about 00 forest land No. 5, 451 meters, and one parcel, which is the land within the same business district in this case. <

17. The fact that the application for challenge was filed on the ground that it is difficult to expect a fair deliberation and resolution if a member of the Committee participates in the instant objection ruling against 100. (3) We can find the fact that the application for challenge was filed on the ground that it is difficult to expect a fair deliberation and resolution. Although, although 100 members of the Committee on Second Instance prepared an appraisal report on other lands in the same project district as each of the instant land, there were circumstances involved in the decision of the instant objection, it cannot be deemed that the aforementioned reasons alone do not constitute a ground for exclusion of members of the Committee on Expropriation of Land, unless it cannot be deemed that there were any other circumstances that make it difficult to expect a fair deliberation and resolution of the instant objection as a member of the Committee.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the instant ruling as illegal due to its procedural defect, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Central Inquiry is without merit.

C. Determination as to whether the assessment of compensation is illegal (1) the selection as a comparative standard (A)

1) Each of the instant lands is located in the south of the Dong-dong General Social Welfare Center located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and its surroundings is the field of mountainous districts and housing zones around the city where detached houses, multi-household houses, apartment houses, apartment houses, neighborhood living facilities, etc. are mixed.

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

① On April 29, 1966, the entire land area of this case was changed to a general residential area as stipulated by the Construction Division Notice No. 2371, and the cadastral approval was not publicly notified as to August 6, 1971. The decision of the above urban planning facility (park) was invalidated under the Seoul Urban Planning Facility Ordinance No. 279, Oct. 28, 1976, and the alteration and decision of the Seoul Urban Planning Park was made under the Public Notice No. 138, Jul. 9, 197, and was pointed out as an urban planning facility (park) under the Public Notice No. 422, Aug. 22, 1978.

② On February 12, 1991 and April 20, 1992, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City instructed the head of each Gu to establish a basic urban planning and a promotion plan, and on February 14, 1994, the Plaintiff prepared a basic urban planning for changing a special-purpose area unreasonably partitioned by a park within a general residential area into a natural green area in accordance with the actual purpose, and requested approval thereof to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City after deliberation by the Yangcheon-gu Urban Planning Committee. On February 13, 1995, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified each head of the Gu of the results of deliberation of the basic urban planning (within evidence No. 13-1, 2). The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified each of the heads of the Gu of the results of deliberation of the basic urban planning (which shall be changed to a natural green area) and notified each of the changes to the special-purpose area of Yangcheon-gu Special Metropolitan City following deliberation by the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Committee to 197.

③ After that, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s announcement No. 201-374 of November 22, 2001, the creation plan for urban planning facilities (parks) was decided on December 31, 2001, and was pointed out as the Yangcheon-gu’s notification No. 2001-87 of December 31, 2001.

15. The implementation plan for the instant village village village development project was authorized. 3) The process of altering the specific use area of each of the instant land is as follows.

On January 22, 1997, a special-purpose area was changed to a natural green area in a general residential area on the land No. 1, 503 square meters before the registration conversion in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul. On November 17, 2003, the part not incorporated into the above park site was divided into a square meter of 114 meters of forest land in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (the second land incorporated into the park site shall be divided). After that, the above △△△ was changed to a second-class general residential area, and the above △△△△△△△△△ 67 square meters of forest in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul was divided into the above 000 on October 24, 200, and was not incorporated into the park site. In addition, the No. 1 of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 7288, Oct. 24, 2002; and the above △△△△△△△△△ was divided from the above general residential area.

4) The appraisal of objection set up two special-purpose areas to individually select a comparative standard site. The future appraisal was selected as a comparative standard site with C standard land in cases of general-purpose areas, and 64 - 4 - 7,385 square meters in cases of natural green-belts, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul. The Pacific appraisal was selected as a comparative standard site with D standard land in cases of general-purpose areas, and A standard land in cases of natural green-belts. The Defendant Central Land & Soil was determined and publicly notified as a planned park site and the special-purpose area was changed to a natural-purpose area, on the ground that it is recognized that the specific-purpose area was changed to a planned park site. As a result of the appraisal of the above objection, on the ground that it is determined and publicly notified as a planned park site and that the specific-purpose area was changed to a natural-purpose area

In addition, as described in paragraph (2) of the attached table of comparative standard sheet, the court assessed each of the lands of this case by presenting four cases as follows: forest land (the reference land A), site (162 - 6 - 750m (hereinafter referred to as "B reference land") in the natural green area as the comparative standard land of each of the lands of this case as shown in paragraph (2) of the attached table of comparative standard sheet; and forest land (the reference land C) and land (D reference land) in the general residential area.

5) On the other hand, on August 24, 2004, the Defendant Heavy High School made an objection to increase the amount of compensation based on the appraisal of the objection that selected the standard land within a general residential area as a comparative standard paper (D standard land) in the procedure of raising an objection against the land 00,000, Dong-dong Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, which was incorporated into the village village development project of this case.

[Ground of recognition] The statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 19, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 20 (including each number), the court's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

[Non-Evidence] Determination of Gap evidence Nos. 22-1 to 5 (B)

1) Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act provides that land subject to restrictions in public law shall be assessed according to the condition under which such restrictions are restricted, and where the restrictions in public law directly aim at the implementation of the relevant public works, the said restrictions shall be assessed based on the specific-use area or specific-use district before the alteration, etc. of the land, the purpose of which is to directly implement the relevant public works. Therefore, in calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land subject to restrictions in public law, where the restrictions in public law directly aim at the implementation of the relevant public works, the said restrictions shall be assessed according to the state under which they are not subject to the restrictions in public law, and where the general restrictions in public plans are already imposed by means of public notice, etc. under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, regardless of the relevant public works, such restrictions shall be assessed as they are.

In addition, if the land is located within an urban planning zone, considering the impact of the specific use area on the price formation of the land, it is reasonable to select the specific use area as the reference land to be applied to the land concerned, barring any other special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. The selection of the reference land cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the reference land is considerably far away from the land subject to expropriation.

2) 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 the Construction Division Notice No. 138 on July 9, 1977 (the Seoul Urban Planning Park was decided on October 28, 1976 as the Construction Division Notice No. 465 on August 6, 197, but the cadastral approval was not announced, and the specific residential area was changed to a natural green area, and thereafter the development project was implemented as part of the village village park development project executed by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, even if the period between the above Seoul Urban Planning Decision and the change of the 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 Decision is a series of measures to implement the village village park creation project of this case, and the alteration of specific use area to each of the land of this case is a modification decision of the Seoul Urban Planning as to the above Seoul Urban Planning Plan, and it is a modification decision of the above Seoul Urban Planning Plan to the green green belt park creation project of this case, and it is conducted directly for the 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 alteration of use to the green belt shall be evaluated as prior

As such, each land of this case shall be deemed a general residential area and shall be evaluated as a park site without being limited. A and B standard land is a natural green area different from each land of this case, and it is inappropriate to be a comparative standard for each land of this case. C standard land is a general residential area and land category and use conditions are the same as each land of this case as forest land of this case. However, if C standard land is selected as a comparative standard land for each land of this case, the big difference from each land of this case is low from local factors or individual factors. The current use of each land of this case is determined as an urban planning facility (park) on August 6, 1971 and its development was restricted regardless of Defendant 2, 3, and 4's intent, and it is inappropriate to be a comparative standard for each land of this case. Ultimately, even though the land category and use status are different from each of the land of this case, it seems to be the most appropriate land to be designated as a general residential area and not limited to D.

On the other hand, the instant objection was assessed on the basis of the result of the appraisal conducted on the premise that the specific use area is a general residential area among the appraisal of the above objection, but the comparative standard price selected by the said appraisal appraiser is different from that of the reference land C, and in the case of the reference land C, it is inappropriate to take it into account as the comparative standard price of each of the instant lands as seen earlier. In this regard, the instant objection judgment is erroneous.

(2) As seen above, the reference land for correction of other factors conforms to the comparative standard land of each of the instant lands. Accordingly, this paper examines only the portion of the appraisal of each of the instant land on the premise of reference land D among the court appraisal, on convenience, and examines whether the court appraisal was appropriate in terms of other factors correction, etc.

(A) Facts of recognition

1) On May 17, 2005, the Plaintiff investigated on May 17, 2005, 84.18 to 114.79%, and the 2 and 3 lands were located in pure housing zone, but the d standard land is located in wild housing and housing zone, each of the instant land is located in the gradic land, and D standard land is located in the gradic land, and D standard land is located in the gradic land and the gradic land, and the gradic land is natural forest in the gradic land, and the gradic land in the gnadic land is the gradic slope, the gradic land in the gradic land.

3) The court appraisal calculated the gap rate of the land size No. 1, 2, and 0.45 in the case of the land size No. 1, 35, and 0.45 in the case of the land size No. 3, taking into account the circumstances where it is difficult to develop the part of the land size No. 1 in excess of 51 per cent. The court appraisal corrected the gap rate of the land size No. 1, 2, and 00 in the case of the land size No. 1, 650,000 per square meter on November 19, 203.

[Ground of recognition] The statement No. 20-12-17 of the evidence No. 20, the result of the court appraisal, the fact-finding results on the court appraiser, the purport of the whole pleadings

[Evidence of Absence] Determination of Evidence Nos. 47, 48, and 49 (B)

1) As acknowledged above, each of the instant lands is subject to the relevant laws and regulations and practical restrictions on the use of standing timber in a state where standing timber is in good natural condition, and the court’s appraisal is reasonable as it evaluates and evaluates much more unfavorable than D standard land in terms of the demarcated land condition in consideration of such factors. Therefore, this court’s appraisal result is to be adopted. 2) On the other hand, the part that the court’s appraisal among the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion did not properly take into account the grounds for restriction on development under the relevant laws and regulations due to exceeding 51% of the total standing water of each of the instant lands as well as other factors.

Article 16 (1) of the Land Compensation Guidelines provides that when there are matters falling under any of the following subparagraphs, other than the land price fluctuation rate, wholesale price inflation rate, regional factors, and individual factors, the restriction or cancellation of the use, disposal, etc. of land pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be amended. Article 16 (2) of the Land Compensation Guidelines provides that matters falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall not be reflected in the comparison of regional or individual factors, or development gains directly related to the relevant public project shall not be amended as other factors:

The analysis of individual factors refers to the work of determining the price of the real estate through the analysis of the shape, environment, and utilization status of the real estate. The correction of other factors generally applies to the case of revising the difference of the price calculated by the market price, the evaluation example, the regional factors, and the analysis of individual factors. Even if there are grounds for limiting the use, disposal, etc. of the land under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall not be reflected in the case of reflection in the comparison of regional factors or individual factors.

In full view of the above facts and the provisions of Article 16(1) and (2) of the Land Compensation Guidelines, inasmuch as the court appraisal finds that the grounds for restrictions on development due to the excess of the standing timber water of each of the instant lands are set at a rate much higher than that of ordinary cases by reflecting the grounds for restrictions on development due to the excess of the standing timber of each of the instant lands in the nature of the individual factors, it is difficult to view that the said grounds for restrictions on development were not reflected in other factors as alleged by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3) Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the court’s appraisal did not properly consider the case of compensation evaluation.

Since the relevant provisions, such as Article 70(1) of the Public Works Act do not necessarily stipulate the normal market price of similar similar land or the compensation preference, etc., and do not necessarily need to be taken into account as the factors for calculating the amount of compensation, it should be taken into account in cases where there is a case where neighboring similar land was traded or a compensation was made, and where it is proved that the price would have an impact on the assessment of the amount of compensation as normal and that the price would have an impact on the assessment of the amount of compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du7968, Mar. 27, 2001).

According to the above facts, it seems reasonable that the court's appraisal was calculated as above by taking into account the sale and purchase cases of the lands similar to each of the lands of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was any error. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. (3) If the calculation of compensation for each of the lands of this case is based on the court's appraisal result, the reasonable compensation for losses is calculated based on the court's appraisal, such as 1,695, 672, 400 won (50,600 won x 3,334m) in the case of the lands of this case, 23,395, 600 won in the case of the lands of this case. (508,600 won x 46m) in the case of the lands of this case, 16,347, 500 won in the case of the lands of this case, 16, 500 won in the case of the lands of this case, 200 meters in the compensation money of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Jung-to-land is without merit as seen above, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Kim 00, Kim00, and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Jung-to-land does not extend to the amount corresponding to the amount stated in the "reasonable compensation statement" column. Thus, the plaintiff's claim to confirm the absence of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Kim Kim 00, Kim 00, and And thus, it is dismissed.

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judge Lee Jong-soo