The method of calculating the amount of compensation for loss in the case of expropriation of land within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the method of calculating the expropriation and disposition authority

In the case of expropriation of land in an area where the standard land price is publicly announced by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the standard land price of the reference land, such as the land to be expropriated and the land category, shall be based on the standard land price of the reference land, among the reference land selected by dividing the above five categories into five categories within the area subject to the selection of the reference land in question, but the reasonable price shall be calculated which reflects all factors without any omission, by comprehensively taking into account the factors specified and comprehensively taking into account, after the announcement date of the target area specified in Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and the expropriation decision office shall establish that the selection of the principle on the assessment of compensation is legitimate by specifying the factors of the reference land and the assessment factors

Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu75983 Decided September 12, 1989, 88Nu2496 Decided May 23, 1989, Decision 88Nu5488 Decided May 23, 1989

Plaintiff 1 and 12 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney of the Central Land Tribunal or his/her legal representative

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu643 delivered on February 10, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the appraisal method of each of the above two of the above land was unlawful since the appraisal methods of each of the above two of the above land were determined as illegal since the appraisal methods of each of the above two of the above land did not disclose the land as the reference land, although the appraisal of each of the above land was based on macroficial Evidence in consideration of the location, surrounding environment, utilization situation, the rate of land price fluctuation, wholesale price increase rate, etc. of each of the above land in the appraisal of ○○ and △△△△△ Joint Office (○○ or △△△△△ Office) as cited in the instant objection decision based on macroficial Evidence, and all of the answers were made as reference land. However, there was no evidence that the above ( Address 1 omitted) was different from the previous land of this case and the category of the land of each of the above land was different, and there was no specific disclosure as to the consideration of normal market price of neighboring similar land.

According to the records, the above ○○ Office did not state the reference land on the site of this case on the appraisal report, but merely state the reference land price of KRW 400,00 as the reference land in paragraph 2 of the appraisal report, but it can be found that only the reference land price of Daejeon Jung-gu ( Address 2 omitted) was selected and assessed as the reference land on the site of this case among the land of this case. Thus, it is erroneous that the court below pointed out that the above ○○ Office did not state the reference land on the site of this case. However, in full view of the relevant provisions such as Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, including Article 48(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the above ○○ Office did not state the reference land on the land of this case, which is located within the area where the reference land price is publicly notified by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the reference land category of the reference land price of this case.

In addition, in calculating the amount of compensation for the land within the area where the standard land prices were publicly announced, the standard land prices should be first selected based on the standard land prices, but the reasonable price shall be calculated reflecting all factors after the date of the public announcement of the area cited in Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory. (See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu24296 delivered on May 23, 1989) The Land Expropriation and Disposition Authority shall specify factors for calculating the standard land prices and the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, and it is necessary to establish that the method of calculating the amount of compensation is legitimate by clearly stating the factors for calculating the amount of compensation for the land (see Supreme Court Decision 8Nu548 delivered on May 23, 1989). The above appraisal and assessment of the adjacent similar land at the rate of 00Nu150,000 through 200,000 per residential area and the appraisal and assessment method for the land at the rate of 00Da54006, per annum.

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won