(a) Selection of the reference land which serves as a standard for expropriation of land within an area where the standard land price under Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is publicly announced;

(b) In the case of paragraph (a) above, the case holding that the appraisal and assessment conducted on the public register of the land shall be unlawful for the land whose land category is adjacent to the site, on the ground that the land category on the public register of the land is a forest or a special-purpose area under the Urban Planning

A. In a case where land is expropriated within an area where the standard land price is publicly announced pursuant to Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), the land to be expropriated and the category and class of the reference land in the area subject to the selection of the reference land shall be the same as that of the reference land in question, and the reference land price of the reference land shall be the same as that of land utilization, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions which are ordinarily deemed similar.

(b) In the case of the above "A", the land category on the public register of the land is unlawful, where the forest land category or the specific use area under the Urban Planning Act is a residential area, and the land category has not yet been changed to the land category, and the land category is adjacent to the site, and the appraisal and assessment calculated on the basis of the standard land price is unlawful.

Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (Amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (Amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10756 decided Sep. 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1494) 88Nu3505 decided Dec. 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 404) 91Nu2397 decided Feb. 25, 1992 (Gong192, 1179)

Plaintiff Hongk Law Firm, Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Central Land Tribunal, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu14856 delivered on May 9, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the land category in the public register of the land subject to this case is a residential area and the most effective use of the land is a house, on the premise that the land category in the public register of the land subject to this case is a residential area, and the land category is the most effective use of the land is determined, the court below determined that the land category in the Seo-gu, Incheon Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) is also a land category in the vicinity of the land site, and that the △ Dong-dong also selects the land as a reference land and assessed the amount of compensation on the basis of each standard land price in the vicinity of the land site, and that each appraisal is a legitimate assessment in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and therefore, the judgment of this case is legitimate.

However, in the case of expropriation of land within an area where the standard land price is publicly announced pursuant to Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), the land to be expropriated and the land category and grade of the reference land within the area subject to the selection of the reference land shall be the same as that of the reference land in question, and the reference land price of one reference land which is ordinarily recognized as similar to land utilization status, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions shall be the standard land price (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8647, Dec. 27, 1988; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10756, Sept. 12, 198; each subparagraph of Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3505, Dec. 26, 198); where the above ○ Partnership and △ Dong have the specific use area of the land under the Urban Planning Act, and the above land category has not yet been changed to a residential area.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of standard land price under the former Land Utilization Management Act, which judged the above appraisal as legitimate, and the ground for appeal pointing this out has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)