[1] The method of assessing the amount of compensation for land expropriation and use and the method of describing the price calculation factors to be entered in the appraisal report

[2] The extent of explanation for the reason that the appraisal based on the land tribunal's objection ruling is illegal and that the court appraiser's appraisal is reasonable

[3] In a case where a design change or additional construction of a building expected to be constructed due to a subway construction is required, whether such expenses are subject to compensation for losses arising from the use of the underground part of the land (negative)

[1] In assessing the amount of compensation for the expropriation and use of land, all factors of the calculation cited by the relevant statutes shall be considered in detail and comprehensively. However, even if all detailed parts of the calculation factors are explained daily or their impact on the assessment factors are not expressed numerically, there is an explanation that the factors can be specified and clarified and the degree of consideration for each factor can be objectively obtained.

[2] In order to make the appraisal based on the land tribunal’s objection illegal and appropriate appraisal by the court appraiser, it shall specifically state what difference is and what is erroneous in the appraisal by the court appraiser compared with the appraisal by the court appraiser.

[3] According to Article 81 of the Urban Planning Act and Articles 4-6 and 5 of the former Urban Railroad Act (amended by Act No. 4924 of Jan. 5, 1995), and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14722 of Jul. 6, 1995), where an urban railroad constructor uses underground sections of another person's land for the construction of urban railroad facilities, the compensation is based on the appropriate price of the land (referring to the land on the underground section and the surface corresponding to the vertical area) on the underground section of the land used for the installation or protection of urban railroad facilities. However, it is clear that the modified design cost and additional construction cost do not belong to the multi-level lower-level lower-level-level-level-level-level-use-use-use-based-use-based-use-based-level-based-use-based-based-based-based-based-based-level-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-

[1] Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act / [2] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 8 (2) and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 46 (2), 47, and 51 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 81 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 4-6 and 5 of the former Urban Railroad Act (amended by Act No. 4924 of Jan. 5, 1995), Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Railroad Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14722 of Jul. 6, 1995)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du1505 delivered on May 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1789) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu872 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2905) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu11524 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994, 838 delivered on January 23, 1998) 97Nu1719 delivered on January 23, 198 (Gong1998Sang, 624 delivered on January 29, 199 (Gong199, 399, 394) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Du19849 delivered on July 28, 199 (Gong199, 394) / [309Du19794 delivered on July 1994]

Do High Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Osung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu2304 delivered on October 14, 1998

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

1. In assessing the amount of compensation for the expropriation and use of land, each factors cited by the relevant laws and regulations shall be considered in detail and in a comprehensive manner, and each factors shall be reflected in the appraisal report for this purpose, but even if the detailed part of the factors for calculation are either explained daily or the numerical impact of the factors on the assessment is not expressed numerically, the factors are specified and clarified, and there is an explanation to the extent that the details and degree of consideration by each factor can be objectively obtained. Meanwhile, in order to make the appraisal based on the objection ruling by the Land Tribunal illegal and appropriate appraisal by the court, the appraisal report must be explained in detail as to which point is different or wrong compared with the court appraiser’s appraisal (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du1505, May 26, 1998).

The court below determined that the appraisal report, which forms the basis for the judgment on the objection of this case, is unlawful because it did not describe the environmental conditions, access conditions, and catch conditions, street conditions, and administrative conditions to the extent that it can be seen as being taken into account for any reasons, while comparing the land of this case with the standard land and the goods and comparing them, and it does not describe the calculation factors to the extent that they can be seen as being similar to those of the appraisal report of the court below. Thus, the court below calculated the compensation for the temporary use of the land of this case and the permanent use of some underground spaces according to the appraisal of the court below. However, examining the contents of the appraisal report, which forms the basis for the judgment of this case, the appraisal report of this case, which is also a basis for the judgment of this case, clearly indicates and explains the specific factors to be calculated by each item of the judgment of the court below while comparing the land of this case

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on appraisal or by violating the rules of evidence, etc. that judged that the appraisal was unlawful on the grounds that the appraisal report of this case did not specify and specify the factors for calculation. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

2. The lower court determined that, on August 31, 1989, the Plaintiff’s construction permission was granted to construct officetels buildings of 17th underground floor on the instant land, but the approval was granted as of March 20, 192 and the approval was granted as of July 24, 1993, and the alteration was confirmed to pass through the subway 5th underground floor construction and operation plan (No. 1992-7 of the Ministry of Transport Notice) of the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the five underground floors of the said new construction plan building and the five and sixth underground floors of the said new construction plan, and that the installation of panty, retaining walls and waterproof floors, and the installation of mechanical parking facilities was necessary to ensure the safety of subway structures and the new construction plan building and included in the modified design cost and additional construction cost to alter the structure, use, and equipment in the instant ruling, but it was unlawful to exclude this from the subject matter of compensation, thereby recognizing the modified construction cost and the additional construction cost as unlawful.

However, according to Article 81 of the Urban Planning Act and Articles 4-6 and 5 of the former Urban Railroad Act (amended by Act No. 4924, Jan. 5, 1995) and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14722, Jul. 6, 1995), if an urban railroad constructor uses underground portion of land of a third party for the construction of urban railroad, the compensation shall be based on the appropriate price of the land (referring to the land of an index corresponding to the area and vertical length) used for the construction of urban railroad facilities for the installation or protection of urban railroad facilities, which is calculated by multiplying the lower rate of utilization of the relevant land by the lower rate of multi-level utilization, the lower rate of utilization of the underground part, the lower court’s low rate of utilization of the relevant land, and other low rate of usage of the new construction plan, and it is clear that the modified design cost and additional construction cost do not belong to the compensation rate other than the modified construction cost of the new construction or the additional construction cost.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending relevant statutes that included the modified design cost and additional construction cost as above in the amount of compensation for the permanent use of the underground segment of the instant land, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal assigning this error also have merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)