2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Approval and public notification of the project;

- Project name: Urban planning facility project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”)

- Project operator: Defendant

- Notice: Notice No. 2014-118 of the Seongbuk-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City on December 18, 2014

B. Adjudication on expropriation by the Daejeon Metropolitan City Land Tribunal on March 19, 2015

- Objects to be admitted: Doksung-dong, Daejeon-dong (Land Number 1 omitted), 260 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “site”) and 1,211 square meters of parking lot (hereinafter referred to as “number 2 omitted”) owned by the Plaintiff, and obstacles (hereinafter referred to as “land number 2 omitted”); hereinafter referred to as “land to be expropriated” in the aggregate of the site and the site (number 1 omitted);

- Commencement date of expropriation: April 23, 2015

- Amount of compensation: 679,263,100 won [128,908,000 won for a site (number 1 omitted out of the above amount of compensation, and 513,585,100 won for a parking lot (number 2 omitted)];

- An appraisal corporation: the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisal of Expropriation”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisal of Expropriation”)

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on February 26, 2016 (hereinafter “instant objection judgment”)

- Amount of compensation: 702,770,050 won [13,887,000 won for the site (number 1 omitted out of the above amount of compensation, and 531,084,050 won for the parking lot (number 2 omitted)];

- An appraisal corporation: Bilateral appraisal corporation and Sam Chang Chang appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal of objection”) in the appraisal of this case

D. Defendant’s deposit of compensation for losses

On April 22, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 662,043,10 with the Daejeon District Court No. 1980 for the year 2015, as the Plaintiff refused to receive the compensation following the instant ruling of acceptance, and deposited KRW 22,951,450 with the Daejeon District Court No. 1973 for the year 2016, Apr. 7, 2016.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2, 3, 12, 14, 15 (including spot numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) (Land Number 1 omitted) Building site and (Land Number 2 omitted) parking lot were lots made on January 13, 2012, and were used for the same purpose until they were expropriated. Therefore, the land to be expropriated in this case constitutes an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use and thus should be assessed en bloc.

B) The instant expropriated land was, in principle, a land within a development-restricted zone, which was located within the relevant development-restricted zone prior to subdivision. However, upon the Defendant’s permission for development activities, the instant expropriated land was used as a toilet, rest area, or parking lot site by changing the form and quality of the building site and a parking lot. In addition, the Defendant’s expropriation of the instant expropriated land is “urban planning facility project (construction site)” for the purpose of accepting the instant expropriated land, and (number 1 omitted), a toilet and a resting room for visitors, and a parking lot (number 2 omitted) is used as a parking lot. Therefore, the current status of the instant expropriated land is excluded from the development-restricted zone or is able to engage in development activities within the development-restricted zone.

C) The land to be expropriated in the instant case has been used as a rest room or parking lot, and thus has been made profits therefrom, it should be assessed as profitability real estate.

D) The appraisal of expropriation and the appraisal of objection are subject to the selection of comparative standard sites and the appraisal of individual factors, which do not reach a reasonable amount of compensation. However, among the court appraisal, the compensation of KRW 1,565,291,100 calculated on the premise that the land to be expropriated was cancelled in a development-restricted area constitutes a reasonable amount of compensation. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the compensation amount, 900,320,050 won, excluding KRW 664,971,050, which the Defendant deposited as compensation for the land to be expropriated, and the delay damages therefrom.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) In principle, it is reasonable to conduct individual evaluations as two parcels, and there are no special circumstances that there is an indivisible relationship for purposes other than neighboring ones.

B) It is difficult to view the toilets and simplified rest areas newly built by the Plaintiff on the instant land subject to expropriation as facilities generating profits, and even if convenience is offered, it is difficult to view the instant expropriated land as real estate in which profits are generated, and it is not expropriated in a development-restricted zone after being released from the development-restricted zone. Therefore, it cannot be assessed on such premise.

C) There is no error in the selection of a standard for comparison with the instant acceptance ruling and the instant appraisal ruling and the assessment of individual factors.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged if there is no dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 6 through 11, 16 through 18, and this court's appraisal commission to non-party 2:

1) On October 16, 1995, the Defendant leased a natural green area from Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty: Nonparty), which was a natural green area, one thousand and four hundred years for lease to use the area of 1,471 square meters prior to the Daejeon Seo-dong (number 1 omitted), the land expropriated in the instant development restriction zone, for the new construction of public toilets and rest areas to be used at the Sungsung-gu Natural Training Center and for the new construction of public toilets and rest areas.

2) The Defendant newly constructed a public toilet and a public resting room’s total floor area of 130.51 square meters on the first floor of the land expropriated in the instant development restriction zone after consultation on construction in the instant development restriction zone (hereinafter “instant building”). On January 13, 1998, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership of the instant building on the following grounds:

3) The Plaintiff filed an application for permission for a land transaction contract with the Defendant on August 21, 2009 to purchase the land expropriated from Nonparty 1, and the Defendant permitted the land transaction contract for the purpose of preserving the present condition on September 23, 2009.

4) On November 3, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds that Nonparty 1 purchased the instant expropriated land from Nonparty 1 on October 9, 2009.

5) Although the entire land category of the instant expropriated was previously changed, the Plaintiff filed an application for land category change or partition after the purchase of the instant expropriated land, and the instant expropriated land was divided into a site (number 1 omitted) and a parking lot (number 2 omitted) parking lot on January 13, 2012, and the land category was changed to a building site (number 1 omitted), and the land category was changed to a “building site” (number 2 omitted) parking lot was changed to a “parking.”

6) The result of this court’s commission of appraisal to Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “court appraisal”)

(a) Amount of compensation: 685,248,600 won (137,150,000 won for a site (number 1 omitted) and 548,098,60 won for a parking lot (number 2 omitted)

B) Where the land to be expropriated is assessed collectively, the amount of compensation: 1,034,113,00 won (182,780,000 for the site (number 1 omitted) and 851,33,000 for the parking lot (number 2 omitted)

(c) (Land Number 1 omitted) An amount of compensation assessed individually on the basis that a site adjoins a road (number 1 omitted): 144,300,000 won;

D) The amount of compensation where the instant land to be expropriated is assessed collectively on the premise that the land to be expropriated was released from a development-restricted zone: KRW 1,565,291,100 [276,66,00 for the site (number 1 omitted), and KRW 1,288,625,10 for the parking lot (number 2 omitted)];

E) The land to be expropriated in the instant case was revoked in a development-restricted zone, and (number 1 omitted) on the premise that the site adjoins to the road (number 1 omitted), the amount of compensation assessed individually only on the site: KRW 285,532,000.

D. Determination

1) Whether a lump sum assessment is conducted

A) In a case where multiple parcels of land are indivisible for the purpose of use, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the whole parcels of land as one parcel, and to investigate the characteristics of the land as one parcel, and evaluate the whole at a single price. Here, the term "case of indivisible relationship for the purpose of use" means a case where the situation in which the land is used as a group of land is in a relationship that is deemed reasonable and reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspect from a social, economic, and administrative aspect (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1428, May 26, 2005, etc.).

B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier in the above facts, it seems reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects that the land to be expropriated was used as a group of land, and thus, it is reasonable to evaluate the site and (number 1 omitted) parking lot (number 2 omitted) parking lot as a complex in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

(1) The Defendant, one parcel of land, leased the instant land from Nonparty 1 in a lump sum, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from Nonparty 1 as it is.

(2) After the Defendant newly constructed the instant building, the instant expropriated land was used as a site and a parking lot for the instant building. For the purpose of the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant land (number 1 omitted), there is no special change in the land category of the instant expropriated land before and after the Plaintiff filed an application for change of land category or partition of the instant expropriated land. The main text of Article 33(1) of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of February 8, 199) provides that “the site of the instant expropriated land shall adjoin to the road (excluding those used only for automobile traffic) not less than 2 meters.” The Defendant appears to have satisfied the requirements that the instant expropriated land should adjoin to the road as a whole at the time of the construction of the instant building, and even if the Plaintiff purchased the instant expropriated land (number 1 omitted) and (number 2 omitted), it cannot be viewed that the instant expropriated land was used as a parking lot for the purpose of continuous use of the building before and after subdivision, and (2) the parking lot number omitted.

(3) The site (number 1 omitted) is surrounded by the parking lot (number 2 omitted), and (number 2 omitted) is accessible only to the road through the parking lot (number 2 omitted), and there is no other way to enter the site (number 1 omitted).

(4) (Land Number 1 omitted) Although the category of the site and (Land Number 2 omitted) parking lot is different, the owner is the same as the Plaintiff. (Land Number 2 omitted) The area of the parking lot is five times the area of the site (Land Number 1 omitted). If the Defendant expropriates the land of this case, which is a group of land owned by the Plaintiff for the instant project, and selects and evaluates (Land Number 1 omitted), as if the land was entirely separate from the parking lot (Land Number 2 omitted), as if the land was entirely separate from the parking lot, the value of the land of this case (Land Number 1 omitted) is lower than the original value.

2) Whether a development restriction zone should be assessed on the premise that the restriction zone is released

A) In calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land subject to restrictions in public law, if the restriction in public law directly aims at the implementation of the public project in question, it shall be evaluated as without such restriction, and if the general planning restriction has already been placed on the public project in question, regardless of the relevant public project in question, it shall be evaluated as being in a state of being subject to such restriction, and if the designation of a development restriction zone under the Urban Planning Act constitutes a general planning restriction as seen above, it shall be evaluated as being in a state of being subject to such restriction (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu12527 delivered on October 12, 193, etc.).

B) According to the above facts, since the area was already designated as a development-restricted zone prior to the implementation of the instant project, the amount of compensation for expropriation of the instant expropriated land should be evaluated as being restricted in the public law in calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of the instant expropriated land. Even if the Defendant was permitted to engage in development activities on the instant expropriated land, this is merely a local government that has lawfully obtained permission for development activities in accordance with the procedures under the Development-Restricted Zone Act, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have satisfied all the requirements under the law necessary for permission for development activities in the instant expropriated land in accordance with the Development-Restricted Zone Act, or to have cancelled the designation of a development-restricted zone. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the price of the instant expropriated land should be assessed on the premise that a development-restricted zone was cancelled

3) Whether the land to be expropriated in the instant case should be assessed on the premise that it is beneficial real estate

The plaintiff argued that it should be assessed on the premise that it is beneficial real estate because he operated a simplified rest area and a parking lot in the land to be admitted. However, since there is no ground to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4) Justifiable compensation

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to comprehensively assess the land to be expropriated in the instant case. As such, among the court appraisal, the land to be expropriated in the instant case should be assessed in a lump sum, and according to the result of appraisal on the condition that it is subject to restrictions as a development-restricted zone. Accordingly, the reasonable amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated in the instant case is KRW 1,034,113,00 [=182,780,000 [number 1 omitted] + 851,33,00 [number 2 omitted].

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 369,141,950 won [=reasonable compensation amounting to KRW 1,034,113,00, KRW 664,971,050 + Compensation amounting to KRW 664,971,050 + Compensation amounting to KRW 531,00 + KRW 531,084,050]; and to pay money calculated at each rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Civil Act, from April 24, 2015 to May 4, 2017, which is the date following the date of expropriation, deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-man (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)