2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment of KRW 7,844,234,190 to the plaintiff and its equivalent 5% per annum from April 4, 2009 to February 14, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of the trial in the first instance, the Plaintiff bears the remainder, the Defendant bears the costs of the trial in the first instance, and the Plaintiff bears the remainder, and the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor bears the remainder.

A. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 17,584,434,190 won with 5% interest per annum from April 3, 2009 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

B. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked. The defendant shall additionally pay to the plaintiff 3,257,040,000 won with 5% per annum from April 4, 2009 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

(a) Approval and public notification of the project;

- Project name: An urban planning facility project (a project to create a Doreale Park, hereinafter referred to as “instant project”);

- Project implementer: Head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

- A public announcement of project approval: No. 2002-75 of September 16, 2002 of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, No. 2007-62 of October 11, 2007 of the same public announcement, No. 2008-42 of June 19, 2008 of the same announcement, No. 2008-46 of July 3, 2008 (b) (the public announcement of project approval for the land of this case as seen in paragraph (b) above is the public announcement of September 16, 2002 of the same public announcement, No. 2002-75 of September 16, 2002)

(b) Adjudication on expropriation on February 13, 2009 by local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City;

- Subject to confinement: 139 Gazine trees, flazine trees, flazine trees, flazine trees, flazine trees, etc. on the land of Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant trees”).

- Compensation for losses: 4,031,880,500 won

[4,007,965,500 won (the instant land) + 23,915,000 won (the instant item)]

- Commencement date of expropriation: April 3, 2009

- An appraisal corporation: Bred appraisal corporation and Cred appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal of expropriation”) conduct by the above appraiser;

(c) Ruling by the Central Land Tribunal on June 18, 2009;

- Contents of adjudication: 4,30,346,450 won to increase compensation for losses;

[4,305,492,950 won (the instant land) +24,853,50 won (the instant item)]

- An appraisal corporation: A state appraisal corporation or one appraisal corporation (hereinafter above appraiser) shall conduct an appraisal;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 40, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether to permit the application for intervention in the defendant's assistant

As the Plaintiff raises an objection against the motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”), we examine whether the said motion for intervention is lawful or not.

If a third party participates in a lawsuit or participates in an assistance under the Civil Procedure Act in a case involving an administrative litigation, he shall have an interest in accordance with the result of the lawsuit concerned, such as infringement of rights or interests. The term "interest" refers to a legal interest.

According to the relevant regulations and submitted data, the duties of building and managing the instant Dogdong Park, which falls under urban planning facilities, fall under the intervenor's inherent duties having jurisdiction over the administrative district in which the above urban park is located, and the defendant was delegated to the defendant, who is the head of the Gu, to undertake the project of this case as the project operator, and the intervenor is the principal management authority of the project of this case, and the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case is completed on April 3, 2009, and the compensation for losses is finalized through this lawsuit, and it is recognized that the intervenor is actually responsible for the payment of the compensation for the land of this case. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the intervenor's rights or interests are likely to be infringed as a result of the lawsuit of this case. Accordingly, the intervenor's application for intervention in the subsidy of this case is legitimate unless there are any other circumstances to deem that the intervenor applied for intervention with intent to delay litigation procedures. The plaintiff's assertion on the other premise is without merit.

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the instant land, the instant general residential area was the first general residential area, and the third general residential area was the third general residential area as well as the third general residential area as the surrounding land if not designated as the park site, which is an urban planning facility, for the purpose of implementing the instant project. Therefore, in calculating the compensation for losses for the instant land, the standard land within the third general residential area as comparative standard site shall be selected by considering that there is no limitation in the public law, such as the designation of the park site, and the status of the use thereof shall be evaluated as commercial site.

Nevertheless, the appraisal of objection was made by selecting the land within the Class 1 general residential area of Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 5 omitted), which is a land within the Class 5 general residential area incorporated into the park site as a comparative standard for the land of this case, and then the appraisal of objection was made by a mistake that excessively lowers the amount of the compensation on the premise that the status of use is forest land.

With respect to the trees of this case, the appraisal of the ruling was calculated to prevent the transfer expenses of trees from falling into the actual expenses.

The amount of compensation for the instant land should be calculated according to the appraisal of the Nonparty in the first instance trial (hereinafter “court first appraiser”) based on the premise that the specific use area is the third general residential area and the use status is the commercial site. The compensation for the instant trees shall be calculated according to the appraised value of the said appraiser who calculated the transfer cost properly.

B. Summary of the defendant or intervenor's assertion

(1) According to Article 70(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), the amount of compensation for land shall be calculated based on the actual situation of use as at the time of pricing. In light of the impact of specific use area on the price formation of land, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to select specific use area as the reference land applicable to the pertinent land, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, there is no illegality in the appraisal of objection calculated the amount of compensation for the instant land as the comparative standard site for the said land.

In addition, a general residential area was subdivided into Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 as at October 203, 203, where the designation of Class 1 general residential area was required for the protection of urban scenery and natural environment by means of hill and steep slope’s housing site, park, green belt area, etc. However, since the land in this case satisfied the above requirements, the specific residential area was only designated as Class 1 general residential area. For large cities like Seoul around that time, most of the forests in the same size as the land in this case were designated as Class 1 general residential area. The land in this case was mostly designated as Class 1 general residential area. The land in this case was 51% of the total residential area under the relevant laws, such as Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 24 of the Urban Planning Ordinance of Seoul, and the land in this case was considerably designated as a green area. However, it is reasonable to view that the land in this case was converted into the land of this case after the project in this case, and thus, it did not seem to have been used as a neighboring forest area of this case.

Shebly, even if not, the result of the first appraiser's appraisal by the court was erroneously assessed in light of the following reasons, and the amount of compensation was excessively higher than that of the neighboring compensatory precedents.

㈎ 행정조건 비교의 위법

While the court first appraiser selected as a comparative standard land, the specific use area of the Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 8 omitted) and 374 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “resident 8 omitted”) is currently Class 3 general residential areas, the specific use area of the instant land is divided into Class 1 general residential areas, and the specific use area of the instant land is different from that of Class 1 general residential areas, and as a result, various development costs were incurred for converting the instant land into commercial site, it was erroneous for the said appraiser to evaluate the standard land as identical to the instant land

㈏ 획지조건 비교의 위법

In general, since the area of one parcel is larger than the area of one parcel and the realization of the transaction unit is lowered, it is necessary to reflect this, and thus, the court's first appraiser is erroneous in the comparison of the land conditions.

㈐ 기타요인 보정의 위법

Although the land to be compared and the use status of the land to be compared should be selected in the selection of the compensation example, the court first appraiser of the court has the error of calculating the status of the use of the land to the extent that the status of the use of the land is different from the land of this case as the compensation example in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 7 omitted) by using the land of this case as the compensation example.

Secondly, there is no illegality since the appraisal of the compensation amount of the trees of this case and the appraisal of the transfer cost of standing timber, etc. are calculated appropriately.

4. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

5. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) Summary of the land of this case

㈎ 이 사건 토지는 원고가 1971. 7. 6.경 매입하였는데, 그 당시에는 주거지역으로 지정된 4필지의 토지였으며, 분필 등을 거쳐 서울 강남구 (주소 1 생략) 임야 856㎡, 같은 동 (주소 2 생략) 임야 117㎡, 같은 동 (주소 3 생략) 임야 102㎡, 같은 동 (주소 4 생략) 임야 1,884㎡(이하 위 (주소 1 생략) 토지를 ‘병합전 (주소 1 생략) 토지’로, 나머지 토지를 그 지번으로 특정한다) 등 4필지가 되었다가, 사업인정고시 이후인 2007. 5. 11.경 원고의 병합신청에 따라 이 사건 토지로 병합되었다.

㈏ 이 사건 토지는 서울 강남구 도곡동에 소재하는 지하철 3호선 매봉역의 서쪽 인근에 남쪽으로는 남부순환로에, 서쪽으로는 논현로에 각 접하는 상태로 위치하고 있다. 주변 지역을 보면 서쪽 건너편으로는 대규모 아파트 단지가 형성되어 있고, 남쪽 건너편으로는 근린생활시설 및 주택 등이 있으며, 동쪽 및 북쪽으로는 순수 자연림 상태의 시가지 주변 임야지대가 있다.

㈐ 이 사건 토지는 주거지역 또는 일반주거지역 상태로 있다가 2003. 10. 20.경 서울특별시의 일반주거지역 종세분화 조치에 따라 제1종 일반주거지역으로 지정되었으며, 현재 도시지역 내의 공원(근린공원)용지로서 일반미관지구, 대공방어협조구역, 과밀억제권역 등으로 지정되어 있다.

D. Progress of development around the land of this case

㈎ 이 사건 토지를 포함한 서울 강남구 도곡동 일대 251,500㎡는 1977. 7. 9. 건설부 고시 제138호로 도시계획시설인 근린공원(도곡공원)의 부지로 결정·고시되었고, 1979. 6. 11. 서울특별시 고시 제252호로 지적승인이 고시되었다.

㈏ 항공사진에 나타난 이 사건 토지 인근의 개발 및 이용상황의 변천 과정을 살펴보면 아래와 같다.

(1) [1970s] The forest zone in a natural forest state was formed toward the north and west of the instant land located at the end of each salary marsan, and the farmland price formed between the residential zone and the east and west of the instant land was formed to that east, and was abutting on the south as seen by the non- packing road (the farmland price formed in the south and south as above).

(2) [The point from 1980 to the point of time when the land was established on the west side of the instant land] as seen earlier was similar to the situation of use in the 1970s, but farmland began to be changed from the south side of the instant land to the site. Since around 1988, the construction was conducted on the west side of the instant land, and the forest land in the natural forest state on the west side of the instant land was changed to the site (see evidence 24-5, 6).

(3) [After the establishment of a debate, a large-scale apartment complex was built in a forest zone in thewest width of the land of this case, and most surrounding areas, except the land designated as a park site, including the land of this case, were changed to the same form as at which commercial buildings, apartment houses, houses, etc. were concentrated.

ally, the land of this case and its surrounding status

㈎ 병합전 (주소 1 생략) 토지와 (주소 2 생략) 토지 부분은 남쪽으로는 남부순환로에, 서쪽으로는 논현로에 각 접하고 있는 반면, (주소 3 생략) 토지와 (주소 4 생략) 토지 부분은 위 (주소 1 생략) 토지 및 (주소 2 생략) 토지 부분의 후면 상단부에 위치하여 대체로 논현로에서 도로 안쪽으로 20m 이상 떨어져 있고, 임야 상태의 토지들로 둘러싸여 있으며, 별도로 도로와 접하고 있지 않다.

㈏ 현재 이용상황을 보면, 병합전 (주소 1 생략) 토지 부분은 1977년경부터 무단으로 형질변경되어 조경수 등이 식재되어 있고, (주소 2 생략) 토지 부분도 무단으로 형질변경되어 주차공간으로 이용되고 있는 반면, (주소 3 생략) 토지와 (주소 4 생략) 토지 부분은 참나무 등 잡목이 우거진 자연림 상태의 토지이고, 특히 (주소 3 생략) 토지 부분은 도로보다 13m 내지 26m 정도 지대가 높다.

㈐ 이 사건 토지 인근의 남부순환로나 논현로에 직접 맞닿은 토지들 중 이 사건 토지와 같이 근린공원(도곡공원) 부지로 결정·고시된 경우를 제외하고는 대부분 제3종 일반주거지역으로 지정되어 상업용 부지 혹은 대규모 아파트 부지로 이용되고 있다(원고는 이 사건 토지의 취득 당시 위 토지의 서쪽에 위치하고 있던 서울 강남구 도곡동 산 57-1 토지도 함께 매수하였는데, 위 토지는 현재 도곡동 (주소 9 생략) 토지로 등록전환되었으며 제3종 일반주거지역으로 지정되어 상업용 부지로 이용 중이다).

x. Results of each appraisal

㈎ 재결감정인들은 이 사건 토지의 비교표준지로 이용상황이 임야로서 공원용지에 편입된 (주소 5 생략) 토지(이용상황 : 자연림, 용도지역 : 2002년 당시 일반주거지역, 현재 제1종 일반주거지역, 도로교통 : 맹지, 형상지세 : 부정형 완경사)를 선정하였다. 다만, 재결감정들은 이 사건 토지를 평가함에 있어 개별요인 중 행정적 조건에 관하여 공원용지에 편입됨으로 인한 공법상 제한을 받지 아니한 상태로 평가하여 격차율을 1.67로 상향조정하였다. 재결감정들의 구체적인 내용은 아래 표 기재와 같다.

The land price of the reference land in the main sentence shall be 1,320,00 c. 1,320 c. 320,00 c. 320 c. c. 150,000 c. 1,5380 c. 1,5380 c. 1,5380 c. 320,000 c. 150,53380 c. 1,5380 c. 01. 1,65 01. 01. 1,65 04. 01. 1,65 01. 7. 01. 01. 181,404 4. 1,601. 7. 1,05 04 c. 1,004 c. 1,004 c. 381, 389,000 c. 15

㈏ 법원1차감정인은, (주소 5 생략) 토지는 용도지역, 이용상황, 형상·지세가 이 사건 토지와 유사하나 공원용지에 편입된 토지에 해당된다는 이유로, 용도지역이 일반주거지역이면서 공원용지에 편입되지 않은 (주소 8 생략) 토지(이용상황 : 상업용, 용도지역 : 2002년 당시 일반주거지역, 현재 제3종 일반주거지역, 도로교통 : 광대소각, 형상지세 : 부정형 평지, 공시지가 : 3,750,000원)를 비교표준지로 선정한 다음, 이 사건 토지의 이용상황이 임야임을 전제로 하여 아래 표 기재와 같이 이용상황별 평가액을 산정하였다(이하 ‘법원1차감정’이라 한다).

Class 1 ordinary residential forests and fields 1.634,000,000 1.38 2,980,000 2 general residential forests and fields 1.634,000,000 general residential forests and fields 1.634,000,000,000 1.40,000,000 1.634 1.034 0,000,000 1.0,000,000 1.40,000 0,000 1.43,000,000 1.0,000 0,000 1.43,10,000,000 1.0,000,00 1.43,10,000,000,000, 1.634,034,0003 ordinary residential houses and fields 1.6,034,05,00

In addition, the court's first appraiser made a supplementary appraisal on the premise that the land use status of this case is residential or commercial (hereinafter "court's first appraisal") as stated below on the premise that the land use status of this case is residential or commercial.

5. Landmark 1: 1. 0. 4. 0: 0. 4. 0. 0. 6. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1.05 0. 0. 1. 00 0.80. 0. 1. 00. 0. 1. 1. 680,00 commercial 1. 6.034 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 6. 0. 1. 0. 6. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 6. 0. 40. 0. 0. 1. 6. 05 0. 1. 0. 6. 0. 1. 05 0. 0. 1. 40. 1. 970 0. 1. 1. 1. 6005 0. 1. 7. 1. 0. 1. 8. 1. 7

㈐ 당심에서 실시된 감정인 노영기의 감정결과에 의하면, 이 사건 토지의 용도지역과 이용상황을 아래와 같이 세분화한 다음 순번 7의 경우에는 (주소 5 생략) 토지를, 순번 8 및 순번 8-1의 경우에는 서울 강남구 (주소 6 생략) 대 307㎡(이용상황 : 단독주택, 용도지역 : 2002년 당시 일반주거지역, 현재 제2종 일반주거지역, 도로교통 : 세로, 형상지세 : 부정형 평지, 공시지가 : 1,700,000원, 이하 ‘(주소 6 생략) 토지’라 한다)를, 순번 9 및 순번 9-1의 경우에는 (주소 8 생략) 토지를 각 비교표준지로 선정하여 아래 표 기재와 같이 용도지역 및 이용상황별 감정평가액을 산정하였다(이하 ‘법원2차감정’이라 한다).

Land located within the main sentence: 0.1.41.41.20 0.1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.67 1.00 1.04 1.05 0.1.00 0,000 general residential land 1.634 0.1.05 0.1.06 1.05 0.1.05 0.1.05 0.1.01.07 1.05 0.1.05 1.0,000 general residential land 1.634 0.1.0 0.75 0.0 1.01.0 01.0 01.01.01.0 731.05 1.05 1.05 1.604 1.10.105 1.30

㈑ 법원1차감정인은 이 법원의 추가보완감정촉탁에 따라, (주소 3 생략) 토지 및 (주소 4 생략) 토지 부분과 병합전 (주소 1 생략) 토지 및 (주소 2 생략) 토지 부분을 구분하여 해당 토지의 용도지역과 이용상황을 아래와 같이 상정한 다음, 순번 10 내지 12의 경우에는 (주소 6 생략) 토지를, 순번 13의 경우에는 (주소 8 생략) 토지를 각 비교표준지로 선정하여 아래 표 기재와 같이 용도지역 및 이용상황별 감정평가액을 산정하였다{이하 ‘법원1차감정(추가보완)’이라 한다}.

[No. 3 omitted] Land and (No. 4 omitted) Land

Table 1.601.12, 260,000 ordinary residential places of 1.634 1.034,000 ordinary residential places of 1.634 034,000 ordinary residential places of 1.6034,000 ordinary residential places of 1.634 1.05,000 general residential places of 1.6034 1.051.05 0,000,000 on 1.051,005,000 on 1,034 1.034 1.05 1.05 0.70,001.05 0.70,000 0.84,940,940,000

[ Address 1 omitted] Land and (Name 2 omitted]

Table 12 General Residence 12 0.80 10.80 1.258 1.258 1.80 0.450,000 13 General Residence 1.634 1.6034 1.034 0.00 1.0,000 1.634 1.034 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.01.00 0.01.00 0.01.00 0.01.00 0.01.0 0.80 0.01.00 0.0 0.01.00 0.80 0.0 0.80 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.69 1.00 0.0 0.69 1.00 0.

㈒ 한편, 재결감정들과 법원1차감정은 아래 표 기재와 같이 이 사건 수목에 대한 보상액을 산정하였다. 그러나 재결감정인들이 작성한 감정평가서에는 수목의 수종, 규격, 수령, 수량, 관리상태, 수익성, 이식가능성 등을 고려하여 취득가격 범위 내에서 이전비로 평가한다는 취지로만 기재되어 있을 뿐이고, 각 수목에 대하여 수종별로 구체적인 평가기준, 평가방법 및 이전비 산출근거 등에 대한 설명이 없는 반면, 법원감정인은 수종별로 산정한 이전비와 취득비를 비교한 다음, 모든 수종에 대하여 이전비를 각 적용단가로 채택하였다.

The Non-Party’s assessed value of KRW 24,80,000,000 in the Non-Party’s assessed value of KRW 23,030,000,000,000, which is a hub of the first appraisal appraisal corporation of the appraisal of the appraisal of the appraisal of the purchase of the purchase of the shares included in the main text, shall be KRW 24,67,360,640 in the KRW 77,60

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 63, Eul's statement or image of evidence Nos. 1 through 12, on-site inspection result, each court's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Compensation for losses of the land of this case

(1) The principle of calculating the amount of compensation for land subject to limitation in public law

㈎ 공익사업법에 의하면 수용재결에 의한 보상액의 산정은 수용재결 당시의 가격을 기준으로 그 보상액을 정하도록 하면서( 공익사업법 제67조 제1항 ), 토지에 대한 보상액은 가격시점에 있어서의 현실적인 이용상황과 일반적인 이용방법에 의한 객관적 상황을 고려하여 산정하되, 일시적인 이용상황과 토지소유자 또는 관계인이 갖는 주관적 가치 및 특별한 용도에 사용할 것을 전제로 한 경우 등은 이를 고려하지 아니하도록 하고 있다( 공익사업법 제70조 제2항 ). 또한 공익사업법 시행규칙 제23조 제1항 은, 공법상 제한을 받는 토지에 대하여는 제한받는 상태대로 평가하되, 그 공법상 제한이 당해 공익사업의 시행을 직접 목적으로 하여 가하여진 경우에는 제한이 없는 상태를 상정하여 평가한다고 규정하고 있다.

In light of the contents and purport of the relevant provisions, in calculating the amount of compensation for land subject to expropriation, the amount of compensation is basically to be calculated based on the actual state of use at the pricing point. However, if the public law limit on the land subject to expropriation directly aims at the implementation of the relevant public works, it is exceptionally required to assess the amount of compensation under the premise that there is no limitation under the public law in such public works law (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du4504, Apr. 21, 200, etc.). Meanwhile, Article 23(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act provides that the land subject to expropriation should be assessed based on the specific use area or specific use district prior to the alteration of the specific use district prior to the alteration, or the specific use district prior to the alteration of the relevant public works, and the meaning of the provision under Article 23(1) is to be based on the presumption that there is no special reason to restrict the existing state of use of land prior to the implementation of the relevant public works at the time of the alteration of the land and its surrounding circumstances.

㈏ 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 토지는 원래 주변 토지와 함께 주거지역이었는데, 1977. 7. 9. 도시계획시설인 도곡공원의 부지로 도시계획결정이 되고 1979. 6. 11. 지적승인이 된 후, 20년 이상이 지난 시점에 이르러 비로소 피고가 위 도시계획사업을 시행하게 되었으므로, 1977. 7. 9.자 도시계획결정은 이 사건 사업의 시행을 직접 목적으로 하여 행하여진 것이라고 할 것이다{공법상 제한을 받는 수용 대상 토지의 보상액을 산정함에 있어서는 그 공법상의 제한이 당해 공익사업의 시행을 직접 목적으로 하여 가하여진 경우는 물론 당초 목적사업과 다른 목적의 공익사업에 편입 수용되는 경우에도 그 제한을 받지 아니하는 상태대로 평가하여야 할 것이므로( 대법원 1995. 6. 30. 선고 94누10788 판결 참조), 위 도시계획결정이 이 사건 사업의 시행을 직접 목적으로 한 것이 아니라고 보더라도 이 사건 토지에 대한 손실보상금의 산정에 있어 그로 인한 공법상 제한을 배제하여야 한다는 결론에는 영향이 없다}.

㈐ 앞서 본 법리를 토대로, 이 사건 토지의 현황과 분필·병합 경위, 주변 토지의 개발 경과 및 이용상황의 변천 내역, 토지 이용규제에 관한 관련 법규의 내용 등을 포함한 아래와 같은 여러 사정들을 종합적으로 검토해 볼 때, 이 사건 토지가 당해 공익사업에 따라 공원용지로 지정되지 않았더라면 이 사건 토지 중 병합전 (주소 1 생략) 토지 및 (주소 2 생략) 토지 부분은 가격시점 당시 제3종 일반주거지역으로 분류되어 상업용 부지로 이용되었을 것이라는 점에 대한 고도의 개연성이 인정되는 반면, (주소 3 생략) 토지 및 (주소 4 생략) 토지 부분은 위 각 토지의 현황과 다른 공법상의 이용 제한 등을 감안할 때 제출된 자료만으로 가격시점 당시 원고가 주장하는 다른 이용상황으로 변경되었을 것이라고 단정하기 어렵다(가격시점 당시 이 사건 토지는 1필지에 해당하나, 이는 2007. 5. 11.경 원고의 신청에 따라 병합된 결과일 뿐으로, 이 사건 토지는 1971년 매수 당시부터 위 병합시까지 독립된 4필지의 토지로 소유·관리되어 온 점, 공법상 제한이 없었던 상태에서의 이용상황을 살피는 이상 해당 기간 동안 당시의 관련 법규에 따라 개발행위허가가 제한되는지 여부 등을 필지별로 판단할 필요가 있는 점 등을 고려할 때 이 사건 토지의 이용상황은 그 병합전 필지를 기준으로 하여 개별적으로 검토하는 것이 타당하다).

(1) The part of the land and ( Address 1 omitted) land ( Address 2 omitted) before consolidation.

Each part of the above land is a part of the land located at the lower part of the instant land abutting on the south side circulation and paddy site, which is used as a parking lot or landscape trees planted as seen earlier, as seen earlier. The above part of each land shows the current use status which is clearly distinguishable from neighboring land including a natural forest zone for a long time, and the gradient of each part of the above land is not high (it can be easily confirmed that the numerical value is remarkably low when calculating gradient because it is limited to each part of the above land located at the lower part according to evidence 16-1, etc.). According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is possible to measure one parcel in the case of standing timber main water, but not to include trees cultivated for sale, and most of the above part of each part of the above land is landscaped, and it is likely that the present condition of the part of each neighboring land and its neighboring land are considerably less than the level of development permission to be restricted (see evidence 15-1, 12, and 3 of the above part, the present condition of the land and its neighboring land area need to be compared with each part of the above land.

(2) Part of land and ( Address 3 omitted) ( Address 4 omitted)

Each of the above lands is located on the upper part of the instant land, which does not adjoin the road, and is located on the lower part, while some landscape trees are planted on the lower part. However, in light of its current status, each of the above lands is appropriate to regard it as land on the extension line of a surrounding forest and field, and clearly distinguishable from the land located on the lower part. Each of the above lands is deemed to correspond to the old hill area with a gradient of at least 10 degrees, and it appears that 51%, which is the level of restriction on development permission, should be sufficiently met if standing timber capital is excluded from the lower part (see, e.g., evidence 15-1, 2, etc.). In full view of all the circumstances, it is difficult to view that each of the above lands is likely to have a high cost for conversion of use status without urban infrastructure, and that there is a possibility that preservation value in the above areas may be preserved from an urban ecological environment perspective, and that each of the above lands is likely to be designated as a site for the above land at the third-class general residential area at the time.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that it is unfair to retroactively apply the provisions of the Standing Timber, etc. to each of the above land while excluding the public law restrictions, but it is not reasonable to retroactively apply the provisions of the law on the designation of specific use areas or the restrictions on permission for development activities, etc., at the time, even if considering the situation that was not designated as a park site, it does not entirely avoid the application of the relevant law on the designation of specific use areas or the restrictions on permission for development activities, etc., and according to the Urban Planning Act, etc. based on the "Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Standards, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 3583, Mar. 20, 199)" as stated in the attached law, the permission for development was restricted for land exceeding 51% from March 20, 199, and even before that, it is reasonable to deem that the permission for development activities of the above land has been practically restricted by the relevant provisions of the Forestry Act.

【Justifiable Compensation Amount

㈎ 병합전 (주소 1 생략) 토지 및 (주소 2 생략) 토지 부분

As seen earlier, the amount of compensation should be calculated on the premise that a specific use area for each of the above parts of land is used as a commercial site as Class III general residential area. The court first appraisal (Supplement, 6), the court first appraisal (Supplement, 13) and the court second appraisal (Supplement, 9, 9-1) all of the above conditions are selected as a comparative standard for land, and the specific amount of compensation is calculated on the basis of most of the same premise, and on the same premise. As such, it is consistent with the opinion in light of the factors for price assessment other than goods and non-goods, but it is difficult to adopt any of the appraisal methods within the discretion of this court (Supplement, 6), the court second appraisal (Supplement, 13) and the court second appraisal (Supplement, 9, 95Nu4513, Nov. 24, 195), and the court second appraisal (Supplement, 196, etc.) can not be adopted through the second appraisal method of each of the above parts of land (Supplement, etc.).

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the effect that there was an error in the comparison of individual factors (administrative factors, conditions of catching, etc.) of the court's first appraisal (additional supplement, 13) and the selection of a compensation preference, but as seen earlier, the above appraisal result evaluated that individual factors of the part of the land of this case, compared to the land ( Address 8 omitted), compared to the land, are above 0.699 under the conditions such as the situation of use, etc., and if there is no limit of the park site, the case of the land of this case, which is the site, is presumed to have been determined as a compensation preference. In light of the fact that the defendant's internal assessment alone alone, it is difficult to deem that there was any error of law by the court's second appraisal, and

㈏ (주소 3 생략) 토지 및 (주소 4 생략) 토지 부분

As seen earlier, the amount of compensation should be calculated on the premise that the specific use area of each of the above lands is a forest and field as Class I general residential area. However, the adjudication and appraisal and court second appraisal (number 7 omitted) land (number 5 omitted), the court first appraisal (number 1 omitted), the court second appraisal (number 8 omitted), the (number 10 omitted) land as comparative standard land, and the court second appraisal (number 10 omitted) land as well as the calculation of compensation amount through comparison of regional factors and individual factors (number 6 omitted) land as at the time of incorporation into the same park site. Since it is difficult to find that the public land value at the time of incorporation into the same park site is more than 150,000 won per square meter and it is difficult to correct the land as at the time of entry into the above land by raising the administrative conditions, etc. (number 8 omitted) land is excessively different from the land of this case, but it is difficult to see that there is no specific difference between the land of this case and the land of this case as at the time of the above specific use area.

㈐ 이에 의하면, 이 사건 토지에 대한 정당한 보상액은 앞서 채택한 법원1차감정(추가보완) 결과 중 해당 부분에 따라 12,097,220,000원[{102㎡((주소 3 생략) 토지 부분) + 1,884㎡((주소 4 생략) 토지 부분)} × 2,260,000원/㎡ + {856㎡(병합전 (주소 1 생략) 토지 부분) + 117㎡((주소 2 생략) 토지 부분)}× 7,820,000원/㎡]이 된다.

C. Compensation for losses in the trees of this case

(1) The court’s first appraisal is compared with each other by determining transfer expenses and acquisition expenses by taking account of the type, standard, quantity, management status, profitability, possibility of transplantation, difficulty of transplantation, etc. of each type of trees, and then adopting the transfer expenses as the applicable unit price for each type of trees. The appraisal report provides a detailed basis for the calculation of transfer expenses and acquisition expenses by item, and provides a explanation of the basis for calculation of transfer expenses and acquisition expenses by item, and no other circumstance exists to deem that there was any error in the outcome of the said appraisal. Thus, the court shall adopt the first appraisal of the court in calculating the compensation amount for trees of this case.

Shebly, the reasonable amount of compensation for the trees of this case is KRW 77,360,640 according to the court's first appraisal.

D. Intermediate conclusion

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to claim against the plaintiff about the existence and scope of the defendant from April 4, 2009, which is due compensation amounting to 12,174,580,640 won (=12,097,220,000 won + 77,360,640 won (the title of this case) + 7,844,234,190 won (=12,174,580,640 won - 4,330,346,450 won) and damages for delay from the next day of the expropriation of this case to February 14, 2012, which is due date of the imposition of a substantial amount of judgment, to claim against the plaintiff as to the payment of damages by 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for lack of merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance partially different conclusions are unfair, the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognition amount among the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted part of the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation amount. The plaintiff's appeal of this case and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed for lack of merit

[Attachment]

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)