In accordance with Article 32(1), (4), and (5) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act, if an administrative agency prepares a topographic map according to the urban management plan’s decision and installs it at a certain place in the Official Gazette and the Official Gazette, and at the same time keeps a topographic map and keeps it in a state in which the general public can access it, whether the announcement of a topographic map is legitimate even if the topographic map itself was not included in the Official Gazette and the Official Gazette (affirmative)

Article 10(5) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9442, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”) provides that a topographical map shall be prepared and published at a place where land use is restricted by an urban management plan; the purpose of the provision is to promote convenience in land use and ensure predictability and transparency in administration by clearly announcing the details of the restriction on land use and the restriction on the use thereof. Under Article 10(5) of the same Act, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s “Guideline on the Preparation of Topographical Drawings, such as the region and district” provides that an urban management plan shall be prepared and output on the site of A1 (594m x 841m m x 194m x 257m x 297m m) so that the general public can access the topographical map at the same time by means of the Act on the Utilization of Land Planning and Utilization, thereby reducing the content of the topographic map by 201 and 261m m m2.

Article 32(1), (4), and (5) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9442 of Feb. 6, 2009); Article 32(5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; Article 8(9) of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use; Article 27(1) and (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2169 of Aug. 5, 2009)

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du37122 Decided April 7, 2017 (Gong2017Sang, 980)

Han Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yoon Jae-ap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2059110 decided February 8, 2017

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the validity of the notification of topographic drawings (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. According to Article 32(1), (4), and (5) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9442, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”), a topographical map indicating the urban management planning matters on the topographical map on which the cadastral records are indicated, shall be prepared, except in cases where the determination of the urban management planning is publicly announced by using a topographical map above the scale prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and where the determination of the urban management planning is publicly announced, a topographical map indicating the urban management planning matters on the topographical map on which the cadastral records are indicated, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall be made available for public perusal of the relevant documents. According to each of the provisions of Article 27(1) and (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act upon delegation (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 2169, Aug. 5, 2009); a topographical map on a scale of 1/500 through 1/1,000 (a green area, forest area, agricultural and fishery area, etc.

As can be seen, the purport of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act that requires the formulation and announcement of a topographic map after the determination of an urban management plan is to promote convenience in land use and ensure predictability and transparency in administration by clearly announcing the details of land subject to restrictions on land use and restrictions on the use thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du37122, Apr. 7, 2017). Accordingly, pursuant to Article 10(5) of the Guidelines on the Preparation of Topographical Drawings in Area, District, etc., the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport provides that where the general public peruses a topographic map, a topographical map is to be prepared and output on the site of A1 (594m x 841m x 182m x 257m) or A4 (297m x 297m x 297m). Furthermore, the purpose of the Act is to make sure that the general public can easily access the topographic map by setting the content of the topographical map, such as the Act on Land Use Planning and Utilization by setting more than 136.

B. The lower court determined that there was no error in the procedure of the announcement of the topographical map in accordance with the instant district unit planning, on September 5, 2008, when the Gyeonggi-do Governor prepared a topographic map and publicly announced the instant district unit planning as the Gyeonggi-do Notice No. 2008-283 on September 5, 2008, stating that “the topographical map itself was not recorded in the announcement, but can be perused by the general public because the topographical map was kept in the Gwangju Viewing Urban Planning,” and that around that time, the said topographical map was kept in the Gwangju Viewing Urban Planning and the pertinent topographical map and

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles as to the announcement of topographic drawings in the urban management planning decision.

2. Regarding the method of market price calculation (ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3)

The lower court determined that it is reasonable to calculate the market price of the instant real estate based on the result of the first appraisal by the first instance court on the following grounds: (i) in calculating the market price according to the exercise of the right to demand sale, the development gains, including those anticipated to be generated as a result of the project at the time of the price, shall not be included in the unrealistic profit or future expenses; (ii) the result of the first appraisal by the first instance appraiser appears to have properly reflected the development gains arising from the relevant project; (ii) the result of the first appraisal by the first instance appraiser appears to have properly reflected the development gains arising from the relevant project; (iii) while the conditions and conditions of the instant real estate are opened on a wider basis than the comparative standard (e.g., the gap rate of 0.8,065); (iv) the administrative conditions are equal (e., the gap rate of 1.00); and (v) further, there is no illegality in applying other factors (e.g., the gap rate of 1.30) considering the

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, such determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assessment of market

3. Conclusion

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 Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)