[토지수용재결처분취소][공1991.5.15,(896),1299]
(a) The case holding that there was a mistake which did not take into account all the factors such as normal market price, etc. of similar lands in appraising the land to be expropriated, or that it cannot be deemed that at least the normal market price of similar lands was reasonably assessed
(b) The case holding that it is unjust on the ground that the appraisal conducted, without explanation of the specific reasons, the appraisal of which is a fixed rate of the reference land compared with that of the reference land, could not be deemed to have been based on reasonable standards in the friendly comparison of the land and the reference land
A. Each appraisal report on the land to be expropriated contains only a statement on how to purchase and sell nearby land, and there is no explanation on how to reflect the above price in the calculation of the amount of compensation if it was reflected in the calculation of the amount of compensation, or there is no explanation on the specific cases, method of reflection, or degree of reflection. However, each appraisal cannot be deemed to have been assessed by failing to take into account all the factors, such as the normal market price of similar neighboring land, or by reasonably taking into account the normal market price of similar neighboring land.
B. Where each appraisal report on the expropriated land states that the expropriated land is about 10 percent of the standard land in terms of the form of land, accessibility to convenience facilities, etc., or that the land is about 15 percent of the standard land without any explanation as to the specific reasons, if it is stated that it is about 15 percent of the standard land when comparing it with the reference land without any explanation, each appraisal report on the expropriated land and the reference land cannot be deemed to have been based on reasonable standards, so the above appraisal report is unjust.
Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 29 (5) of the Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989)
B. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4307 delivered on July 10, 1990
Preferential Paths
The Central Land Expropriation Committee
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5241 delivered on May 9, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act, Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended or deleted by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), the compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the land price publicly notified, but it shall not be calculated on the basis of the specific method of appraisal and assessment of the adjacent land within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, and it shall not be deemed that the specific method of appraisal and assessment of the reference land has been reflected in the method of appraisal and assessment as well as the detailed method of appraisal and assessment of the reference land within the scope of the standard area as stipulated in Article 29 (5) of the former Act and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989) without any reasonable consideration of factors such as land price fluctuation rate, wholesale price increase rate, normal market price of the adjacent land, etc.
In addition, the theory of lawsuit is unlawful for the appraisal of the number of appraisal by the court below's appraiser. However, as long as the appraisal by the land appraiser's joint office based on the calculation of the amount of compensation cannot be seen as a reasonable evaluation in accordance with the law, the ruling of lawsuit cannot avoid being unlawful, and the conclusion does not vary because the appraisal by the court below's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraiser's appraisal is unlawful
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)