[토지수용재결처분취소등][공1993.4.15.(942),1099]
(a) Whether the specific-use area should be designated as the reference land if the subject land is located within an urban planning zone and there exist the reference land for the same specific-use area as the relevant land (affirmative with limitation);
(b) The case holding that the judgment of the court below which determined compensation amount based on the appraisal by the appraiser who selected a different specific use area as the reference land although the reference land for the same specific use area exists
(a) In calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the land to be expropriated, it is reasonable to select specific-use area as the reference land to be applied to the same land unless there are other special circumstances, in view of the impact that specific-use area on the price formation of the land where the relevant land exists within an urban planning zone, taking into account the impact of the specific-use area on the land, and even if there are differences between the standard land for domestic affairs and the category or surrounding environment of the relevant land, such differences can only be taken place
(b) The case holding that the judgment of the court below which determined compensation amount based on the appraisal by the appraiser selected as the reference land for another land although the reference land for the same specific use area exists;
Article 46 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act
Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8722 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2905) 92Nu5287 delivered on October 9, 1992
Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
The Central Land Tribunal and one other, the Defendants Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu15497 delivered on April 30, 1992
The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal
In calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the land to be expropriated under Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; in case where the land to be expropriated is located in an urban community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community community
The court below calculated the amount of compensation for the land of this case on the basis of the appraiser's appraisal method of the non-party, except for the calculating ratio of land price fluctuations. According to the appraiser's appraisal report, the land of this case is a general residential area and the category of land is a forest and land category in its neighboring representative land, and there is no such standard land. However, a special-purpose area is a general residential area and a land category is 6-236 of Busan Shipping Daegu return-dong, the land category of which is a site, and there is only 38 U.S. land as a forest and land category as a natural green area and a land category is a forest and land category as a forest, and the above appraiser was selected as a standard land for the application of the land of this case.
However, as mentioned above, insofar as a specific-use area has the same land as the reference land, it should be the standard land to be applied to the land of this case, and the difference in its land category or surrounding environment, etc. is sufficient to take into account in water boom. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which determined the compensation amount for the land of this case based on the above erroneous appraisal method is justified in assessing the compensation amount of the land of this case, and it cannot be deemed unlawful. The argument is with merit.
For the above reasons, the part against the plaintiffs among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of 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.