[1] Whether a completion inspection on permission to change the form and quality of land or a change of land category is required under Article 51 subparagraph 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (negative)

[2] In a case where the calculation of the amount of compensation due to the expropriation of land for the housing site development project is at issue, the case holding that the "real situation situation" under Article 70 (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects should be assessed as the factory site when calculating the amount of compensation even if the farmland has already been changed to form and quality as the factory site was completed and the land has not been completed to meet the requirements for land category change,

[1] Change in the form and quality of land means the act of changing the form and quality of land by cutting, filling, leveling, or paving, etc. and reclamation of public waters. It requires that the form and quality of land be de facto changed into external form and that the change is difficult to recover. However, it is not necessary to undergo a completion inspection as to permission to change the form and quality or to change the land category

[2] In a case where the calculation of the amount of compensation due to expropriation of land for a housing site development project is at issue, the case holding that even if the land subject to expropriation meets the requirements for factory site development under the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17497 of Jan. 26, 2002), it shall be deemed that the land subject to expropriation meets all the requirements of "land completed construction for factory site construction" under the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act even if the land subject to expropriation meets the requirements for factory site development, and even if the land subject to expropriation fails to complete the land category change procedure, if the compensation amount due to expropriation is calculated as a "actual use" under Article 70 (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, when calculating the amount of compensation due to the expropriation of the land, etc., even if the land is not completed due to land category change on the public register, it shall be evaluated as a "real use status" under Article 70 (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc.

[1] Article 51 subparagraph 3 (see current Article 51 (1) 3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23718, Apr. 10, 2012) / [2] Article 51 subparagraph 3 (see current Article 51 (1) 3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23718, Apr. 10, 2012); Article 70 (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works; Article 6 subparagraph 9 (see current Article 58 subparagraph 9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17497, Jan. 26, 2002)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1477 Decided November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 312), Supreme Court Decision 2006Du4875 Decided February 23, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 201Du1269 Decided May 13, 201

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jinjin, Attorneys Song Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Gyeong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu12940 decided October 7, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The change in the form and quality of land means the act of changing the form and quality of land through cutting, filling, suspension, or paving and the reclamation of public waters (Article 51 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act). It is required to de facto change the form and quality of land in external shape and to make it difficult to restore the original state due to the change (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du4875, Feb. 23, 2007). It is not necessary to undergo a completion inspection on permission for change in the form and quality or to change the land category to the land category (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1477, Nov. 27, 1992; 201Du1269, May 13, 2011).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence admitted by the court below, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract on 1,706 square meters ( Address 1 omitted) in Yangju-si, which belongs to quasi-agricultural and forest area on January 31, 1990 with the non-party, and entered into a sales contract on 1,706 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case"), and agreed that the non-party, the seller, shall be responsible for the entry of the access road (the plaintiff shall complete the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 of the land in this case). (2) The non-party paid farmland development cost and exclusive use charge for the land in this case with the permission for conversion from the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on September 27, 1993 to "construction of a general wood household manufacturing site" for the purpose of exclusive use, and reported the establishment of a factory with the non-party on 594 square meters in building area on the land in this case and 100 square meters in incidental area, and the plaintiff changed the building area in this case to 9324.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, as long as the Nonparty and the Plaintiff paid the farmland creation cost, etc. after obtaining permission to divert farmland to construct the instant land as the factory site, and filed a report on the establishment of a factory and a report on the alteration thereof, and as long as a part of the factory building is extended, regardless of whether the said factory building, etc. is legitimate, it is reasonable to deem that the alteration of the form and quality of the instant land was completed due to the de facto alteration of the form and quality of the instant land

Meanwhile, Article 6 subparagraph 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 17497, Jan. 26, 2002) provides that "the site for factory facilities for manufacturing business and the land completed with construction for building sites under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes" with respect to factory sites, while the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act does not provide that a completion inspection shall be conducted at the time of completion of alteration of form and quality in relation to permission for diversion of farmland. As in this case, even though permission for diversion of farmland for the purpose of building site was obtained and no completion inspection was completed separately, it is reasonable to deem that the land meets all the requirements of "land completed with construction for building site for factory site" under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if the land in this case meets the requirements of factory site alteration, it is reasonable to evaluate "actual utilization" under Article 70 (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects as the compensation amount for expropriation of the land.

Although there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, it is just to conclude that the actual use of the land in this case should be evaluated as factory site. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for factory site under

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 Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)