(a) The method of calculating compensation for losses, where no reference land exists to the land to be expropriated within the area where the reference land is publicly announced;

B. Whether the court may revoke the said ruling solely on the ground that the said ruling erroneously selected the principle as to the appraisal of the amount of compensation for land to be expropriated (affirmative)

A. If the land to be expropriated within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced is not within the scope of the reference land price selected within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced, the amount of compensation cannot be calculated on the basis of the land price of the same or similar reference land category within the adjacent similar area. In this case, the compensation amount cannot be calculated on the basis of the method of calculating the amount of compensation for losses under Article 46(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989) since the land price was publicly announced as the area where the standard land price was publicly announced, but it cannot be deemed that the standard land price was legally announced because it was not selected, so there is no way to calculate the amount of compensation for losses under Article 29(5) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989).

B. In a case where the appraisal and assessment of a land appraiser, which is the basis for the adjudication of an objection against the adjudication of land expropriation, is judged to be unlawful as it is judged to be unlawful as it erred in the principle or standard of calculating the amount of compensation, barring special circumstances such as that the amount of compensation, which is calculated in the adjudication of an objection, is ultimately higher than or higher than the amount of compensation lawfully calculated in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court may revoke the adjudication of an objection solely on the ground that the necessity to view it in comparison with the amount of compensation calculated in accordance with a legitimate method of assessment has mistakenly selected the principles and standard of calculating the amount

A. Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 48 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989); Article 46(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu270 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong1988,525) 87Nu569,570,571 delivered on December 27, 198 (Gong1989,236) or Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3383 delivered on October 25, 198 (Gong1988,148). B. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10367 delivered on July 11, 1989 (Gong1989,1254)

Cho Byung-sil

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu10956 delivered on October 20, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor are examined.

1. In full view of the provisions of Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989) and Article 48 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989), where the land is expropriated within an area publicly notified as the standard price, the compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the standard price of the reference land classified as above five categories within the area publicly notified as the category of land and the standard price of the reference land, the category of which is the same as that of the reference land. However, unless the land to be expropriated is within the scope of application of the reference land, the compensation amount shall not be calculated on the basis of the standard price of the reference land or the standard price of the reference land, and thus, the compensation amount shall not be calculated on the basis of compensation amount of paragraph 197.7.

The court below held that the above-mentioned land was constructed on the north side of 4 meters high, and that there was a 10-meter reduction price for the remaining side of 7 to 10 meters high, and that the land category passed on the south side of 1 meter high is before the land category and the present situation is miscellaneous. The above 1-mentioned land price was announced as an area subject to the standard of construction announcement No. 467 of December 12, 1979, but the same land price was not determined as the 1-dong land price as the 1-dong land price was determined as the 1-dong land price for the purpose of calculating the compensation amount of the above 2-dong land as the 1-dong land price for the reasons that there was no error in the law regarding the 1-dong land price as the 1-dong land price for the reasons that there was no error in the law regarding the 1-dong land price as the 1-dong land price for the purpose of calculating the compensation amount of the above 1-dong land (hereinafter referred to as the 1-dong land price).

2. As in the instant case, in a case where the appraisal of a joint office of a land appraiser and a joint office, which formed the basis of the said adjudication, is judged to be unlawful since they were wrong selection of the principle or standard on the method of calculating the amount of compensation for loss, such adjudication is also deemed to be unlawful, the court may revoke the adjudication on an objection solely on the ground that the adjudication on an objection is not required to be compared with the amount of compensation calculated in a judgment on an objection in a lawful method of assessment, unless special circumstances are acknowledged, such as that the amount of compensation computed in a judgment on an objection is ultimately less than or more than the amount of compensation lawfully calculated in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Nu10367, Jul. 11, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 8Nu383, Oct. 25, 1988).

As seen earlier, the lower court determined that the judgment on the objection of the instant case was unlawful since the appraisal of the Hanyang-do Joint Consent had mistakenly selected the principles and standards on the calculation method of compensation amount, and further determined that the appraisal of the compensation amount was unlawful. Furthermore, even though the lower court acknowledged the fact that the price assessed according to the calculation method of compensation amount under Article 46(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act at the time of the decision on the expropriation of the instant land based on the appraisal of the number of gamblings by the appraiser of the lower court was much higher than the compensation amount calculated in the decision on the objection of the instant case, whether the appraisal result of the lower court was appropriate or not does not affect the conclusion of

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendant and the Intervenor are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won