Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Jin-jin, Attorneys Jeong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Dolle, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap2987 Decided March 29, 2011

September 9, 2011

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff 2 (Defendant in the judgment of the Supreme Court) corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 158,70,650 won with 5% interest per annum from March 31, 2010 to October 7, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All appeals by Plaintiff 1 and the remaining appeals by Plaintiff 2 are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff 1, and the total costs of appeal between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 5% interest per annum from March 10, 2010 to the date the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 2 1 58,700,650 interest per annum and 5% interest per annum from March 31, 2010 to the date the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of the following sub-paragraph (b) above, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Parts in height

The fifth decision of the court of first instance is not more than the following.

“Determination.”

1) Determination on Plaintiff 1’s assertion

In a lawsuit claiming the amount of compensation increase, the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on expropriation is the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255 delivered on November 28, 197, etc.).

In addition, in case where several parcels of land are in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use as a group, it is reasonable to regard the whole parcels of land as one parcel, and to evaluate the whole area at a single price after investigating the characteristics of the land, and "in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use" means the case where the situation in which a group of lands is used as a group of lands is in a relationship that is deemed reasonable and reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects and in terms of the formation of value of the land concerned (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Du824, Jul. 27, 2001; 2005Du1428, May 26, 2005).

(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraisal of the market price of Nonparty 2 of the first instance trial, the following facts are as follows: ① (1) one automobile-related facility of 24m2 on each land; (2) one automobile-related facility of 15m2 on each land; (3) the site area on the general building ledger of each building is 849m2; (4.59% on each of the above land; (2) the land category of the above land is 7m2 on each of the above land is 5m2; (3) the land category of the above land is 8m2 on each of the above land; and (4) the above land is 4.59% on each of the above land; and (2) the land category of the above land is 7m2 and the appraisal area of the above land is 1m2 or more different from the appraisal area of the above land on each of the above land; and (2) the appraisal area of the above land is 1m2 or more.

Therefore, the appraisal result of the above land among the appraisal result of the appraiser non-party 2 of the court of first instance is based on the premise that the above land is used as a group of the above land. Thus, it is not adopted. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the fair compensation amount of the above land exceeds the amount stipulated in the adjudication on objection. Thus, the plaintiff 1's assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on Plaintiff 2’s assertion

A) Whether the land should be evaluated as a factory site

In the appraisal of land price, if the land category on the public register and the actual status are different, it shall be evaluated on the basis of the actual status rather than on the public register. If the change of the form and quality of the land subject to appraisal is shown that the change of the current status has been completed when the change of the form and quality was made on the land subject to appraisal, it is reasonable to evaluate the current status based on the changed actual status even before the change of land category was completed (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6904 delivered on April 12,

There is no dispute between the parties that the land category is actually being used as a factory site. Therefore, unless there is any special circumstance, the land in Gyeyang-dong should be assessed as a factory site, which is the actual situation.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that it should be evaluated as a answer in the state prior to changing the form and quality since it constitutes an illegal form and quality of land that is used as factory site.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 3 to 9 and 12, the plaintiff 2 entered the contract with the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 of the judgment) on January 31, 1990 to purchase the above 1706m2 (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul-dong land") and entered into an agreement with the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 of the judgment) on the fact that the non-party 2, the seller, entered into the ownership transfer registration as to the portion of the above 1/2 of the Seoul-dong land (the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 9, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 3, the building area of the above 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 94, the building area of the non-party 2.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to see that the land in Gyeyang-dong was used as a factory site from around 1999 when the above factory was extended at the latest. Although the category of the land in Gyeyang-dong was not changed, and there was no completion inspection on the farmland diversion construction work (quality change construction work) and the above factory constructed on the land in Gyeyang-dong does not have been constructed on the basis of the above farmland diversion permission, in light of the fact that there is no legal ground to see the necessity of completion inspection on the farmland diversion construction (quality change construction work), so long as the Gyeonggi-do Governor permitted the farmland diversion for the purpose of factory construction on the land in Seodong-dong prior to the above factory extension, it cannot be deemed that the Dongdaemun-dong land was illegally altered. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B) Justifiable compensation

According to the result of the market price appraisal by Nonparty 2 of the first instance trial appraiser, if it is assessed on the basis of land for factory, which is the actual status of the land, the appraised value of 1/2 of the shares can be recognized as the facts constituting 460,278,80.

In this regard, the defendant selected the above ( Address 5 omitted) land as a comparative standard for the appraisal of the sub-owned land. Since the sub-owned land among individual factors is blind, it should be calculated at a lower rate of the gap between the comparative standard and the non-permanent standard, the street condition of which is the vertical length (Ga). However, the appraisal is unlawful, since the difference rate is calculated at 1.00.

According to the evidence mentioned above and the result of the market price appraisal by non-party 2 of the first instance trial, it can be acknowledged that the land in Gyeyang-dong is a master in the cadastral map, that the plaintiff 2 leased each of the above (name 2 omitted) and the above (name 3 omitted) land adjacent to the land in Seodong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

In assessing the land price, the gap rate is not determined by the specific measurement and accurate measurement, and there is a little difference depending on the professional and subjective opinion of the appraiser. According to the above facts of recognition, the appraiser is not simply calculated by the difference rate between the standard and the conditions of the street, which are the blind land, as the horizontal conditions, but rather calculated by the difference rate in the conditions of the street, taking into account the situation of the use of the surrounding land that rents the neighboring land and passes along the road, and such appraisal cannot be deemed unlawful. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C) Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2 158,70,650 won (=460,278,800-301,578,150), the difference between 460,278,800 won which is the legitimate compensation and 301,578,150 won which is the compensation recognized by this ruling (i.e., 460,278,80-301,578,150), and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 31, 201 to October 7, 201, which is the date of the original ruling, to the day of full payment, from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 2's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff 1's claim and the remaining claims of the plaintiff 2 shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds. Since the part against the plaintiff 2, which corresponds to the above recognition amount, among the judgment of the court of first instance, is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be accepted in part, and it shall be revoked, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the above amount, and since the appeal of the plaintiff 1 and the appeal of the plaintiff 2 by the plaintiff 2 are without merit, they shall be dismissed in its entirety.

Judges Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)