The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

In accordance with Article 29(2) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory before it was deleted by Act No. 4120 on April 1, 1989, the standard land price was publicly announced but in the event that the standard land price was not selected, the standard land price was not publicly announced. As such, in the case where the land is expropriated within an area where the standard land price was publicly announced but the standard land price was not so selected, the land price was publicly announced as a public announcement area according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and where the land was expropriated within an area where the standard land price cannot be seen as being lawfully announced, there was no intention to calculate the compensation for loss pursuant to Article 29(5) of the same Act. Thus, the compensation amount cannot be calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the general amount of compensation for loss under Article 46(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 on April 1, 1989).

Therefore, on the premise that Article 46(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act applies only to the case of expropriation of land in an area where a standard land price is not publicly announced as an area subject to public announcement, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on Article 46(1) and (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act and Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In assessing the price at the time of the adjudication to expropriate the land subject to expropriation at the defendant's request, the court below held that the joint office of the Japanese land appraiser and the Japanese land appraiser did not comprehensively consider the factors for the calculation of all prices under Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In light of related evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the judgment of the court below's above recognition is justified, and therefore, it is not acceptable to argue that the judgment of the court below on this point is unlawful.

3. Therefore, the appeal by the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant and the defendant joining the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)