The standards for calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by land expropriation.

In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the reasonable price shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without considering the price fluctuation caused by the approval and announcement of a plan, the direct purpose of which is the execution

Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu113 Decided July 24, 1979, 80Nu382 Decided September 28, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 82Nu402 Decided September 13, 1983

Plaintiff

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Attorney Park Im-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant and his assistant intervenor

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu697 delivered on March 22, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff (○○) shall be corrected to (the plaintiff).

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below is justified by the defendant's decision that recognized the adequate value at the time of the expropriation of the land in this case as 16,500 won per usual and set the amount of compensation for losses under this case's expropriation in accordance with its criteria. The records are examined and acceptable.

According to Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, the calculation of compensation amount due to the expropriation of land shall be based on the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, but the compensation amount shall be calculated at a reasonable price considering the transaction price of neighboring land. In calculating the compensation amount pursuant to this provision, the price fluctuation due to the public announcement of approval of a plan directly aiming at the execution of the relevant public project shall be determined based on the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without considering the price without considering the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation is established by party members (see Supreme Court Decisions 79Nu113, Jul. 24, 1979; 80Nu382, Sept. 28, 1982; 82Nu402, Sept. 13, 19

In light of the records, the court below examined Eul evidence Nos. 4-2 and 3, which is intended to recognize the above compensation amount, and in assessing the land price at the defendant's request to calculate the compensation amount for the land expropriation of this case, it is clear that the previous regulation of public law, namely, the fact that it is within the so-called green belt zone, is not considered in the situation that the land was already expropriated due to the incorporation into the Seoul Metropolitan Park site, which is a public project. Therefore, the theory that considers the price fluctuation due to the implementation of the public project by classifying this appraisal is without merit, and therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no argument that the court's decision cited in the theory of lawsuit is proper.

2. Ex officio determination

The judgment of the court below is stated as the plaintiff (○○) in indicating the parties, but according to the records, ○○○ is clear that it is an obvious clerical error of the plaintiff, thereby correcting it.

3. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed for more than one reason, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party, and the indication of the party shall be corrected. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)