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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The court below determined that, in light of the relevant laws and regulations, the Plaintiff or the previous owners of the instant land should obtain permission from or report the change of the form and quality of the instant land, which is a forest land category, in order to develop the land or use the land as the “transfer,” on the grounds that there was no other data on the fact that the chemical market did not obtain permission to change the form and quality of the instant land or report the change of the form and quality or form and quality, as to the instant land before the instant land division from December 5, 1985, and that the Plaintiff or the previous owners made efforts to change the land category to meet the current use conditions, even if the land category was reclaimed or used after changing the form and quality of the instant land without permission under the relevant laws and regulations, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff or the previous owners developed the instant land into “transfer” or used the form and quality of the instant land without permission under the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the purchase price was calculated as the sale price determined by the Defendant’s intent or negligence.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Article 70 (2) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Works Act") shall, in principle, be based on the actual conditions of use and the general methods of use at the time of the price.