The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the adoption of the appraisal result (Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in the grounds of appeal), appraisal is nothing more than using such knowledge or experience as a supplementary means for the court’s determination in case where a special knowledge or experience is required in order to determine certain matters. Thus, in a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, there are several different appraisals contrary to the same facts in the lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, and in the absence of any evidence to prove that any one appraisal is erroneous, the court employs any one of

Even if it does not go against the logical or empirical rules, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14919 Decided September 5, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11954 Decided February 28, 2008, etc.). In addition, even if one of the appraisal for the assessment of compensation for losses is an illegal cause, the appraisal result is illegal. However, even if the appraisal is illegal, the court may extract the portion which is not illegal from the appraisal content and take into account in its judgment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du4754, Aug. 24, 199). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, while adopting an appraisal by a court appraiser, the lower court: (a) deemed that there was error in the assessment of the gap in the conditions of demarcated land on the land subject to expropriation in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 493,274 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) calculated the reasonable amount of compensation by ex officio revising the gap.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below’s erroneous determination of part of the appraisal contents, and ex officio correction thereof, and the court below’s determination of the reasonable amount of compensation cannot be deemed unlawful unless it was revealed that the measure that calculated the reasonable amount of compensation contravenes logical and empirical rules.

The ground of appeal on this part is justified.