(a) Whether measures are taken to select some of the land to be expropriated as a place of ratification, and to calculate the compensation price of the land to be expropriated after calculating the price of the reference land on the basis of the reference land price (negative)

(b) The case holding that the appraisal which forms the basis for the ruling is lawful, and that the burden of proof is located. The case holding that the normal transaction price of the similar neighboring land is reasonable; and

A. In assessing the amount of compensation due to the expropriation of land, the amount of compensation shall be determined based on the standard land price of the reference land for the land to be expropriated in the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, by selecting a part of the land as the place of ratification and calculating the compensation price of the land subject to expropriation based on the standard land price of the reference land for the purpose of calculating the compensation price of the land subject to expropriation after calculating the compensation price of the land subject to expropriation on the basis of the standard land price of this reference land for the purpose of calculating the compensation price of the land subject to expropriation based on the standard land price of this reference land for the purpose of calculating the compensation price of the land subject to expropriation, by comprehensively taking into account all price calculation factors cited in Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the specific factors comprehensively.

B. The assertion that the appraisal which forms the basis of the ruling is legitimate, and the burden of proof is borne by the expropriation ruling authority.

(c) The case holding that the method of calculating the normal market price ratio is appropriate after adopting a transaction example in the neighboring field and selecting a separate reference land in comparison with it in consideration of the normal market price of the neighboring field of land;

(a)B. Article 46 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Articles 49 and 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989) (Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act)

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu977 delivered on September 13, 198 (Gong198, 1285) 89Nu6556 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1164) 90Nu2437 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2183) (Gong1991, 2730), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7801 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2730) Da. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3010 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong190, 2438) 90Nu431 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong191, 191, 190) 19Nu7109419, Oct. 16, 1997)

Plaintiff 1 and 11 others

The Central Land Tribunal and one other, the defendants' attorney Gangwon-gu et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu2309 delivered on August 29, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

In assessing the amount of compensation due to land expropriation, it shall be described to the extent that the factors for the calculation of all prices specified in Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989) are specific, comprehensively taking into account the factors, and it shall be described to the extent that it can be seen that the factors for the calculation of the price are specified and how the factors are specified in the appraisal document and how the factors are considered. In accepting the land in the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, the amount of compensation shall be calculated based on the standard land price of the reference land for the land to be expropriated. In selecting some of the land to be expropriated as the place of ratification and calculating the compensation price of the land to be expropriated based on the standard land price of reference land to be selected as the place of ratification, and the method of calculating the compensation price of the land to be expropriated is improper.

As legally determined by the court below, each appraisal, which is the basis of the judgment of this case, adopted an inappropriate method of indirect comparison with each other without direct comparison with the reference land, and it did not take into account the transaction cases of neighboring similar land, and even in calculating the compensation unit price of its ratification itself, it did not make it impossible to find the specific basis and method of appraisal as to the individual factors and method of appraisal, since the reference land price is determined by the land category fluctuation rate, and the reference land price is determined by adjacent city tax and compensation preference, etc., which is recognized as representative among the land of this case, and calculated the compensation unit price of the above ratification by comparing the reference land and individual factors suitable for the above ratification rate, and if only the compensation unit price of each land was stated in the above ratification after considering the increase rate of increase in land prices, the above appraisal was not an inappropriate method of comparison with the reference land, and even if the compensation unit price of its ratification itself cannot be determined by the appraisal method, it cannot be determined by the court below's determination that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to individual factors and method of appraisal.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

In order to take into account the normal market price of similar neighboring land, the appraiser Nonparty’s appraisal adopted by the court below adopted a transaction example in neighboring similar areas and selected a separate reference land, and then calculated the normal market price correction rate as stated in its reasoning. In light of the records, the method of considering the normal market price of similar neighboring land should be appropriate, such as a theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the deliberation of normal market price of neighboring land and the deliberation

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)