Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-deok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

KT Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Busan, Attorney Park Mine-cheon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

December 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

From March 7, 2012 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant added up KRW 216,98,04 and its amount to the Plaintiff 2,277m2,152m2, ( Address 3 omitted), forest land of KRW 4,612m2, ( Address 4 omitted), forest land of KRW 4,612m2, ( Address 5 omitted), and land of KRW 19,905m2, which are indicated in the attached drawing No. 1,2, 3, 4, 11, 90, 91, 91, 92, 93, 94, 94, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 19, 208m2, 398, 3984, 97m2, 97m2, 97, 308m2, 394, 97.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 1967, the area of forest land of 343,438 square meters in Dong-gu, Daejeon was divided into 331,537 square meters of forest land and 11,901 square meters of forest land ( Address 1 omitted). The area of forest land of 331,537 square meters in the above ( Address 1 omitted) was again subdivided into 28,947 square meters of forest land and 302,590 square meters of forest land ( Address 1 omitted) on October 16, 1995.

B. On February 26, 2001, Nonparty 1: (a) won the above ( Address 1 omitted) forest at the auction procedure of real estate auction (No. 99 another court around 4594); and (b) paid the price in full; and (c) acquired ownership.

C. After acquiring the ownership of the above ( Address 1 omitted), Nonparty 1 asserted that the Defendant occupied and used the land of this case without permission when installing and using the telecommunication relay station on the land of this case (hereinafter “the telecommunication relay station of this case”). On September 22, 2003, this court filed a lawsuit seeking the transfer of land, removal of buildings, and return of unjust enrichment, and was sentenced to a judgment against the losing court. On August 31, 2006, the appellate court (the appellate court), “the Defendant was paid to Nonparty 1 from September 22, 2003 to Nonparty 1, 28,947 square meters of forest land of this case ( Address 1 omitted), the Defendant’s claim for the dismissal of this case’s land of this case was dismissed by the lower court’s judgment on September 22, 2003 to 205Na11457, and the lower court’s claim for the removal of this case’s land of this case by 10,558 square meters (the actual part of this case was not more than 6,549 square meters).

D. On March 14, 2007, the forest land was divided into 2,277 square meters of forest land in Dong-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City ( Address 2 omitted), 2,152 square meters of forest land ( Address 3 omitted), 4,612 square meters of forest land, 4,612 square meters of forest land ( Address 5 omitted), and 19,905 square meters of forest land.

E. On January 21, 2008, the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on January 21, 2008 with respect to the said ( Address 2 omitted), 2,277 square meters of forest land, 2,152 square meters of forest land, ( Address 4 omitted), 4,612 square meters of forest land, and ( Address 5 omitted) 19,905 square meters of forest land.

F. On August 6, 2009, the category of forest land was changed from the forest land to the miscellaneous land on August 6, 2009 with respect to the 2,277 square meters of forest land.

G. The relevant provisions on the appraisal of the instant land are as follows.

[The Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate]

Article 31 (Rules of Appraisal and Assessment)

The principles and standards to be observed by an appraisal business operator to guarantee the fairness and rationality in appraisal of land, etc. shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land

【Rules on Appraisal】

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Rule is to prescribe the principles and standards to be observed by an appraisal business entity in conducting an appraisal pursuant to Article 31 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act.

Article 4 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in these Rules shall be as follows:

2. The term "transaction comparison method" means a method of computing a price by correcting the situation and modifying the timing of an object according to the current status of an object compared with the transaction cases of an object which is identical or similar to the object; and the term "lease comparison method" means a method of calculating a rent by adding an adjustment of situation, time adjustment, etc. to the current status of the object in comparison with lease cases of an object which is identical or similar to the object;

3. The term "cost method" means a method of computing the current price of an object by reducing the cost of the repurchasing the object at the time of pricing;

5. The term "reasonable calculation method" means the method of calculating the rent by adding the expenses necessary for continuous lease of an object to the amount calculated by multiplying the price of the object at the pricing point by the expected interest rate;

Article 17 (Appraisal of Land)

(1) The appraisal of land shall be conducted by comprehensively taking into account the land subject to appraisal, special-purpose area, utilization status, land category, surrounding environment, etc. from the officially announced value of the reference land located in the same or similar neighborhood to the price rate, producer price inflation rate, and other matters, based on the officially announced value of the reference land from the basic date to the price. In such cases, necessary adjustment,

(2) Where it is inappropriate to select the reference land in the neighboring area as the reference land due to change of use, change of form or quality, etc. after the public announcement of land price, it shall be appraised on the basis of the officially announced land price of similar areas

Article 30 (Evaluation of Optional Fee)

(1) The assessment of rent shall be conducted by the comparison method: Provided, That where the assessment by the comparison method is not appropriate, it may be conducted by the estimation method or profit analysis method according to the type and character of the object.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The final and conclusive judgment of this case is a comparative standard for all of the land of this case, which is owned by the Defendant on the premise that the land category of the above ( Address 2 omitted) is forest land, and calculated rent of KRW 1,100 on the basis of the officially announced land price of this case. However, the land of this case was divided into several parcels after the final and conclusive judgment of this case, and the land of this case was divided into miscellaneous land from forest land to miscellaneous land, and the officially announced land price of this case was increased from 1,230/m209 to 98,900/m2 as of January 1, 2009 at the time of the final and conclusive judgment of this case. The remaining portion of the land of this case, other than the above ( Address 2 omitted), has increased by approximately 30% of the officially announced land price as of the time of the final and conclusive judgment of this case. Since the above increase in rent and property tax of this case has increased by 5% each year, the changes in the amount of the final and conclusive land should be considerably changed.

B. In order to calculate the rent for the instant land, the instant court conducted the appraisal on April 20, 2010 (the appraiser Nonparty 2’s appraisal of rent) and on March 17, 201 (the appraiser Nonparty 3’s appraisal of rent) twice, but the results of the said appraisal of rent should not be adopted for the following reasons.

1) According to Article 30 of the Rules on the Appraisal and Evaluation, the assessment of rent provides for the comparison method in principle. In the case of the instant land, although there are many lands on which base stations, communications towers, etc. similar to the communications relay stations of the instant case, including the land at Daejeon Dong-gu ( Address 10 omitted) and the land at Chungcheongnam-gun ( Address 11 omitted), and the land at issue, the appraisal of this court calculated the rent for the instant land by applying the comparison method.

2) Even if the assessment of the rent of the instant land was conducted by applying the hostile Industry Act, the outcome of the assessment of the rent of each of the instant land was erroneous for the following reasons.

A) According to Article 17(1) of the Rules on the Appraisal and Evaluation, in the appraisal of land, it shall be assessed on the basis of the officially announced value of the reference land located in the same or adjacent area as the land being valued, and on the basis of the officially announced value of the reference land located in the same or similar area, the rate of land fluctuation, producer inflation, and other matters from the basic date to the date of pricing. In calculating the comparison standard of the above ( Address 2 omitted) land among the land of this case, each of the appraisal of rent of this court was calculated on the basis of the comparison standard of the above ( Address 2 omitted) land, as in the land of this case, the area with the same use as the “development restriction zone and natural green area” ( Address 12 omitted) of the Dong-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City ( Address 12 omitted), 264 square meters, 446 square meters ( Address 13 omitted), and 15 square meters ( Address 12 omitted) of each site.

B) In calculating individual factors compared to the standard land comparison, each rent appraisal by this court was assessed as 0.66 to 0.669 on the ground that the conditions of access, environmental conditions, and the conditions of land are no longer high compared to the standard land. However, it is not reasonable to evaluate the land in this case as the standard land is not appropriate for the place of communication relay, but for the place of residence suitable for the place of residence, and in particular, inasmuch as the land is the most suitable place for the location of the place of communication relay of this case, the above conditions should be assessed as more favorable than the standard land.

C) In revising the above ( Address 2 omitted), the appraiser non-party 2's appraisal of rent was set at 1.4 to 1.45 without any ground, and the appraiser non-party 3's appraisal of rent was set at 1.4 to 1.45. The appraiser's appraisal of rent of the above ( Address 16 omitted) is a similar case to the above land for calculating the correction rate. The appraiser's appraisal of rent of the above ( Address 2 omitted) is set at 0.268, considering that the above ( Address 16 omitted) land has access conditions, environmental conditions, land conditions, and administrative conditions compared to the above ( Address 16 omitted) land, the difference rate was set at 0.268, and the other factors correction rate was set at 1.7. The other factors correction rate based on the appraiser non-party 2's clinical appraisal is not reasonable because the appraiser's appraisal of rent of non-party 3 was set at the same time as the above ( Address 16 omitted) land, not the development restriction zone of this case.

D) In determining the expected interest rate of the above ( Address 2 omitted), the appraiser non-party 2's appraisal of rent shall be 4%, and the appraiser non-party 3's appraisal of rent of the above land shall be calculated by calculating the expected interest rate of 5%, but according to Article 49 of the Land Compensation Guidelines, in the case of a site for neighborhood living facilities, the expected interest rate of 5-8% at the time of maximum effective use, 2-5% at the time of temporary use, and 2-3% at the time of temporary use shall be calculated. The instant land has the optimal location conditions for the installation of relay stations as a site for neighborhood living facilities, and the instant telecommunications relay station is anticipated to infringe on the Plaintiff's ownership, so the expected interest rate of the above land shall be at least 6%.

3) In addition to the errors in the appraisal process above, the result of each of the appraisal by this Court shall not be adopted for the following reasons:

A) According to the results of the rent appraisal conducted by Nonparty 5 on February 6, 2004, which served as the basis for the assessment of rent in the final and conclusive judgment of the instant case, the appraiser Nonparty 2 with respect to the unit price for the part of the said part of the land except the said part of the land, calculated all the unit price corresponding to the part on the ship among the said ( Address 1 omitted), but it is contradictory that the result of the appraisal conducted subsequent to the appraisal was less than the result of the appraisal, with respect to the unit price for the part of the said part of the land other than the said ( Address 2 omitted), the appraiser Nonparty 2 was 12,400 or 12,900 or 12,900 square meters, and Nonparty 3 was 6,900 or 7,300 square meters, respectively.

B) According to the result of appraisal of rent by Nonparty 2, the unit price of the land above ( Address 2 omitted) out of the instant land is 102,00 won or 107,000 won or 12,90 won or 12,000 won for the remainder of the land, and according to the result of appraisal of rent by Nonparty 3, the unit price of the said ( Address 2 omitted) land is 125,000 won or 132,00 won or 132,00 won for the remainder of the land, and the unit price of the remaining portion is 6,900 won or 7,300 won or 7,00 won for the cost method among the methods of appraisal of land prices, the unit price of the land above ( Address 2 omitted) is presumed to be 230,00 won or 1,000 won, and the remainder of the land is deemed to be more than the above unit price. Therefore, each court’s appraisal of rent is too low.

C. The Plaintiff separately requested the appraisal of Nonparty 4 in order to correct the error as a result of the appraisal of the rent of the instant land before the court. Nonparty 4 selected the land as a comparative lease case with respect to the assessment of rent of the instant land pursuant to the comparative lease case law, and then calculated the monthly rent of the instant land as KRW 7,749,573 (including value-added tax) considering that the individual factors of the instant land are superior to the aforementioned comparative lease case. As seen earlier, insofar as the result of appraisal of rent of each of the instant land by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 was erroneous, it is reasonable to view that the rent of the instant land is the rent calculated by Nonparty 4. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of rent of the instant land from November 7, 2009 to March 6, 2012 to KRW 28 months from the date following the day of filing the instant lawsuit, 2017, 37, 474, 298, 379, 47.7.7

3. Determination on the adequacy of the calculation method and amount of the rent of the instant land

A. Determination as to whether there was an error of law not based on the lease comparison method

The case holding that since the appraiser's appraisal method is not against the rule of experience or unreasonable, the appraiser's appraisal method should be respected unless there is a significant error (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, 84615, 84622, 84639, Jan. 12, 2012, etc.), Article 30 of the rule on appraisal provides that the appraisal of rent shall be based on the rent comparison method, but the appraisal of rent shall not be based on the rent comparison method, but if the appraisal by the rent comparison method is not appropriate, it shall be based on the reasonable calculation method according to the type and character of the object, and it is difficult to find that the whole appraisal method of the appraisal of the land of this case is unreasonable in light of the fact that the appraisal method of the appraiser 2 and the non-party 3 is based on the fact that the whole appraisal method of the appraisal of the land of this case is difficult to apply, it is difficult to determine the rent of the land of this case to the extent that the land of this case is a regional area or a similar object of rent.

B. Determination as to the result of the appraisal of each rent by the appraiser Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 under the U.S. Act

1) Determination as to the calculation of comparative standards

Unless there are special circumstances, comparative standards shall give priority to specific-use areas within the urban planning zones, and shall select the actual land category pursuant to the actual situation of use outside the urban planning zones. However, if there is no such land, considering the characteristics of the land category, use, surrounding environment, location, etc., the natural and social conditions should be determined identical or most similar to the land subject to appraisal, and even if there is a little difference between the specific-use area or surrounding environment of the reference land and the land subject to appraisal, it cannot be concluded that the selection of the reference land itself is erroneous, and that there is a considerable difference from the land subject to appraisal, it cannot be said that the selection of the reference land is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da97062, Mar. 25, 2010).

In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the land above ( Address 13 omitted) which was selected as a standard for comparison of the above ( Address 2 omitted) land among the land above ( Address 2 omitted) land of this case by the appraiser, appraiser 2, and non-party 3 as the standard for comparison of the above ( Address 2 omitted) land. As long as the appraiser has selected the same area as the standard for comparison of the above ( Address 13 omitted), there is no road directly connecting the above ( Address 12 omitted) land ( Address 12 omitted) land in the same area as the plaintiff claims, and the above ( Address 12 omitted) land is located in the same Dong, and the above ( Address 2 omitted) land is adjacent to the above ( Address 2 omitted) land. Thus, even if the above ( Address 13 omitted) land is not compared to the above ( Address 2 omitted) land, it cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff's selection of the appraiser or the above part of the land has no reason to compare it with the above ( Address 2 omitted) land above) land.

2) Determination on the calculation of individual factors

In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the on-site inspection of this Court, the telecommunications relay center of this case can recognize the fact that the telecommunications relay of this case is located in a calculation where approximately 15 minutes of the 15 minutes of the width is moving to the right side from the tricheon-dong, Sejong Metropolitan City to the Gyeongcheon-si, Sejong Metropolitan City, and that it is located in the direction of the first line that begins from that place to the left side, according to the first line that begins from that place, about 4.5 meters of the way to the right side. Thus, in light of the fact that the telecommunications relay of this case is located near the slope, the convenience of traffic facilities, accessibility to commercial buildings, accessibility to water supply and drainage facilities, water supply and drainage facilities, the situation of neighboring land, suitability of the use of land, the shape and condition of access to the above land, environmental standard conditions, and the land allocation conditions cannot be deemed to be unlawful since the appraiser 2 and the non-party 3 did not have any other reasons to view it as unlawful.

3) Determination on other factors correction rate

A) Determination on the non-party 2

According to the result of the appraiser non-party 2's appraisal of rent, the appraiser non-party 2 did not compare the other factors of the land of this case with the similar cases of neighboring areas, etc., and did not simply consider the evaluation precedents of neighboring areas and similar areas within the same right to receive compensation, normal transaction cases, individual characteristics of land, and other factors in price formation." Thus, it is reasonable to view that the appraiser non-party 2 calculated the other factors correction rate of the land of this case without any specific grounds and calculated the other factors correction rate of the land of this case and calculated the other factors correction rate of the non-party 2 of the above appraiser non-party 2.

B) Determination as to the non-party 3

In light of the following circumstances, the fact that the land is a natural green area like the land other than the development restriction zone or the land of this case, there is no dispute between the parties, and the fact that the land is a natural green area is determined by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of fact-finding with respect to the Korea Appraisal Board Branch of this Court, i.e., the difference rate is determined by fully considering the different specific use area in appraisal, and the case concerning the land of this case, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, which the plaintiff asserted as suitable to compare the basic price of the land of this case, is different from the case of this case where the land rent should be calculated because the land of this case constitutes the sale of the whole land of the land and relay, and as seen in the above comparative standard, the land category, use, surrounding environment, location, etc. of the land is sufficient if the natural, social condition is selected as the land identical with or most similar to the land subject to appraisal, and the similar appraisal case cannot be said to be unlawful merely on the ground that the land of this case is considerably away from the land subject to appraisal.

In addition, the telecommunications relay station of this case is located in the calculation of about 15 minutes of the way that it moves to the right side of the city park from the Sejong-dong, Sejong-dong to the Sejong-dong, Sejong-dong to the parallel mountain, and the way it starts from that place is located in the calculation of the way that approximately 15 minutes of the way it starts to the left side, depending on the mountain path of the first line of the first line. As seen above, it cannot be deemed that there was any error of law that the appraiser 3 determined the rate of difference as 0.268, considering that the land of this case where the telecommunications relay station of this case is located due to the circumstances as seen in the above paragraph (2) above, compared to the above ( Address 2 omitted) conditions of access, environmental conditions, land location conditions, and administrative conditions, it cannot be deemed that there was any error of determining the rate of difference as 0.268, and the rate of other factors correction as 1.7.7.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4) Determination on expected interest rates

In full view of the purport of the argument in the fact-finding with respect to the chief of the Korean Appraisal Board, the fact that the instant land is a site for the communications relay station located on the calculation, not a sales facility or office building in an area with a high degree of activation of the business district. In full view of the regional situation, lease practices, real estate competition trends, bank interest rate level, and rate of rent rate, etc. in the above recognition facts, it is difficult to deem that the expectation interest rate of the land ( Address 2 omitted) is calculated as 4% by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 as 5% by the appraiser, and it is unlawful. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion

C. Determination as to the validity of the amount of rent based on the result of each appraisal of rent by the appraiser, the non-party 2 and the non-party 3

1) Comparison with the result of Nonparty 5’s appraisal of rent

On March 14, 2007, the fact that the forest land was divided into 2,277 square meters of forest land, ( Address 2 omitted), 2,152 square meters of forest land, ( Address 4 omitted), 4,612 square meters of forest land, and ( Address 5 omitted) 19,905 square meters of forest land, is as seen above. According to the record of evidence No. 4 and the result of the appraisal of rent by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 on February 6, 2004, the non-party 5 calculated all the unit price of the above part of the land, excluding the above part of the land, which falls under the part of the above 29,000 square meters of forest land, and the non-party 2, an appraiser of the above part of the land, excluding the above part of the land, shall not be deemed to be a 30,000 square meters of the unit price of the above part of the land, excluding the part of the above 20,201,201 square meters of the land.

(ii) comparison with rent pursuant to cost law;

According to Article 18 of the Rules on the Appraisal and Evaluation, the assessment of rent for a building shall be based on the cost method. However, according to Article 17(1) of the said Rules, the assessment of rent for a building shall be based on the standard method of appraisal of the officially announced land price. As long as the rent for a building is calculated based on the standard method of appraisal of the officially announced land price in accordance with the principle of appraiser, non-party 2, and non-party 3, the assessment of rent for a building is based on the standard method of appraisal of the officially announced land price, even if

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, among the appraisal results of each of the expert appraisers on the land of this case, it is necessary to adopt the appraisal results of the appraiser non-party 3.

4. Determination on the ground for the final judgment of the previous suit of this case

In order to determine whether or not the amount of rent cited in the above judgment is unreasonable due to the change of economic circumstances after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment of this case, the amount of rent, etc. as a result of the final and conclusive judgment of this case and the appraisal by Nonparty 3 of the appraiser shall be compared.

(3) According to the reasoning of the appraisal of the rent of Nonparty 2 and the rent of Nonparty 2, the Defendant, who was not a party to the instant land at the time of the change of the land category of KRW 1 and KRW 2,000, KRW 263/750 [the monthly rent of KRW 1,267,350, KRW 2,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 4,000,000, KRW 2,000,000, KRW 7,000,000, KRW 2,000,000, KRW 5,000,000, KRW 2,000,000, KRW 5,000,000, KRW 2,000,000, KRW 7,00,000, KRW 2,000,000, KRW 9,00,00,00.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-so (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) A forest less than Won; hereinafter the same shall apply.

Note 2) Not more than two decimal places.