(a) Whether the appraisal and assessment is not taken into account, in calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, the rate of increase in wholesale prices which is considerably low (affirmative);

(b) The appropriateness of calculating the amount of compensation based on the reference land price of other reference land although the reference land price had the same reference land price as the land to be expropriated within the area where the reference land price has been publicly announced (negative)

(c) In calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, whether only the first instance or the evaluation is taken into account without identifying the transaction cases of neighboring similar land (negative)

A. In assessing the amount of compensation for expropriation of land within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, the increase rate of wholesale products under Article 49(1)2 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) shall be considered. However, if the increase rate of wholesale products is considerably low compared to the increase rate of land price, and it is not likely to bring about a result of calculating the amount of compensation which is less than the amount of the adjudication, it shall not be deemed to have been taken into account.

(b) Where the land is expropriated within an area where the reference land is publicly announced, the amount of compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the reference land of the same category as the land to be expropriated among the reference land classified as above five categories within the area subject to the selection of the reference land in question and the reference land of the same category. In this case, the land to be expropriated and the reference land of the same category shall be the reference land of the same category regardless of the category of the relevant public interest, such as the land cadastre, and the actual situation of use shall be the reference land of the same category, such as the land and land category, regardless of the category of the reference land in question, the amount of compensation shall not be calculated on the basis of the reference land price of other reference land, regardless of whether there

C. In determining the amount of compensation due to the expropriation of land in the publicly notified area, assessing the amount of compensation by taking account of the example of compensation or the evaluation only, without clarifying the transaction cases of neighboring similar land, is insufficient.

Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989); Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10756 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989,1494) (Gong1989,1494). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu929 Decided September 20, 198 (Gong1988,1341) (Gong1988,1341) 88Nu9558 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989,1490), Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3505 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990,404) (Gong1990,69), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu581 (Gong190,1269) Decided May 8, 1990 (Gong1990,1269) 190Nu897989 delivered on September 13, 197).

The plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-yang et al., Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu8922 delivered on February 21, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant made an objection in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment below as stated in the judgment of this case, and judged that the judgment of this case was unlawful on the ground that, in assessing the amount of compensation of the land to be expropriated in the area where the standard land price was publicly notified, the land category of this case was different at the time of expropriation, although the land category of this case was different at different port, the land category of this case was only taken into account at different port and did not entirely take into account the increase rate of land prices and normal market price of neighboring land. Thus, this cannot be deemed a legitimate appraisal under Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of National Territory, and no other evidence exists to deem that the amount of compensation itself was reasonable despite any error in the method of appraisal.

2. First of all, according to each appraisal statement of the above-mentioned and the Hansung Joint Consent as cited by the court below, the change rate of land price before considering the period subject to appraisal shall be calculated from 26.5 to 26.9 percent, while considering the increase rate of wholesale prices for the same period, 3.16 percent shall not be taken into account. Thus, in assessing the amount of compensation for expropriation of land within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, the wholesale price rate under Article 49 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply) should be taken into account in assessing the amount of compensation for the land within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, but it cannot be said that the increase rate of wholesale prices significantly affects the assessment because it did not cause a result of calculating the amount of compensation which is less than the adjudicated price (see the above appraisal rate of party members, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Nu197.858.

3. However, according to Article 29 Paragraph 1, 3, and 5 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply), where land in the area for which the standard land price is publicly notified is expropriated, the amount of compensation shall be calculated based on the standard land price of the reference land classified as above five category within the area for which the standard land price is previously determined. In this case, the land to be expropriated and land category like land category are the same land category as that of the reference land, regardless of the land category of the land in question, such as land category, land category, land category, and land category as above, and land category are the same as that of the reference land area for which the actual use of the reference land is to be determined by the court below's determination of compensation price based on the standard land price of the reference land is not permitted because it is inconsistent with the purpose of the determination of compensation price of the reference land, which is the same as that of the reference land.

4. Furthermore, Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that the normal market price of nearby similar land shall be considered in determining the amount of compensation due to the expropriation of land within the area for which the standard land price is publicly notified. Thus, the assessment of compensation amount by taking account of the compensation example or heading alone without clarifying the transaction example even though there are cases of the transaction can be found to lack the propriety (Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5737 delivered on January 12, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4734 delivered on February 13, 190; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu581 delivered on May 8, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu802 delivered on May 8, 1990). It is reasonable that the above appraisal price of the land at the price similar to that of the above neighboring land should not be determined at the price equivalent to the above appraisal price of the land at the 19th appraisal price without considering the above appraisal price of the land at the 20th appraisal price.

5. Therefore, in assessing the amount of compensation for the land of this case by the above two appraisal institutions, the conclusion that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the selection of the standard land and the normal market price of similar similar similar land was justifiable, and it was erroneous that it did not take into account the increase rate of wholesale prices in the above appraisal, but it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment below, and thus, it was without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)