(a) Whether the standard land is appropriate for appraisal and assessment which cannot be identified at all as to the land to be expropriated within the notified area (negative);

(b) The case holding that it is a lawful assessment taking into account factors in calculating the amount of compensation for land to be expropriated within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced;

A. If it is entirely impossible to determine which reference land is the reference land for specific compensation even after comprehensively examining the appraisal report by the land appraiser to calculate the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated within the publicly announced area, this cannot be deemed to have selected only one reference land, and such appraisal is difficult to be deemed to be a legitimate assessment capable of calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated.

B. The evaluation report in the preceding paragraph must objectively recognize that the adequate calculation of compensation was made by specifying the price calculation factors prescribed in Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the region and individual factors of the reference land and the land to be compensated. However, even if the individual factors are not specified in numerical value, if the evaluation price of the land to be expropriated is similar to the price at which the reference land price was adjusted at the time, neighboring land price, compensation preference price, and the reference land price are similar to the price at which the reference land price was adjusted at the time, and the individual factors are similar to that of the reference land, it

Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Articles 48 and 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5488 delivered on May 23, 1989 (Gong1990, 173)

Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Central Land Tribunal's attorney-at-law

Attorney Lee Yong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu9786 delivered on May 4, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the contents of each appraisal report in the Hanyang Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. and the Korea Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. and Korea Land Appraisal Co., Ltd.”), each appraisal report in each of the above appraisal offices only filled out the reference land for the land to be expropriated, including each of the land of this case, and did not specifically state what land the reference land for each of the above land was any land. Second, without specifying the factors for calculating the amount of compensation such as the normal market price of neighboring similar land, the court below did not present specific criteria for the method and degree of reflecting the level of land price of neighboring land. Third, by neglecting to take into account the individual factors of the commercial area in the direction of North Korea at the end of the subway 3 Line, the judgment of appraisal based on each of the above cases cannot be exempted from the revocation of the appraisal report of this case.

2. In full view of the provisions of Article 29, Article 29, paragraphs (1) through (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (the provisions of each of the above Acts before being amended or deleted by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Articles 48 and 49 (the Act before deleted by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, where the land is expropriated in an area subject to the public notice of the standard land price under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the reference land for the land subject to compensation shall be selected as only one reference land with the compensation land, land category, and grade, among those reference land which are determined in advance according to the grade of each land category. In this case, if it cannot be seen that only one reference land is selected, such appraisal cannot be deemed a legitimate assessment that can calculate compensation amount for the land subject to compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu848584, May 238, 1989).

According to the records, the appraisal of each appraisal of the above five parcels of land in Hanyang-dong is the reference land for the land to be compensated for 13 parcels of land, including each of the above five parcels of land in this case, and the land of two parcels of land, such as Jinjin-dong 403-1 and 518-1 of the same 518. However, the attached list 1 through 5 of the judgment of the court below among each of the above five parcels of land in this case is land category, and it can be easily recognized that the land category of the above five parcels of land in the above five parcels of land was the same as that of the above five parcels of land in this case, and the court below determined that the selection of the reference land for the above five parcels of land in Hanyang-dong is inappropriate. In light of the following portions of the reference land for the above five parcels of land in this case, it is justified in the judgment of the court below to compare the above five parcels of land with each of the above five parcels of land in this case as the reference land for compensation of the above five parcels of the above five parcels of land.

In addition, considering the portion of the standard land selection as to the land list 6 of the attached Table 6 of the judgment of the court below with respect to joint ventures (the same 518-3), the above land can be considered as the reference land among the reference land adjacent to the public account category and actual use status as a road pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, but even in this case, each of the above land selected by each of the above appraisal offices as the reference land is all the land category or site and the land category on which the above appraisal office is selected as the reference land in this case is different from the above land category in this case from the above land category, it cannot be confirmed at all because it cannot be confirmed whether the actual use of each of the above land is identical or similar to the above land in this case, and it cannot be confirmed that the land use status, etc. of each of the reference land selected by each of the above offices is similar to the above

3. The compensation amount of the above land shall be calculated on the basis of the standard price of the reference land in comparison with the above 0-1 piece of land adjacent to the above 0-1 piece of land, the compensation amount of which shall be calculated on the basis of the standard price of the 0-1 piece of land adjacent to the above 0-2 piece of land, the compensation amount of which shall be calculated on the basis of the 0-1 piece of land adjacent to the above 0-2 piece of land, the compensation amount of which shall be calculated on the basis of the 0-1 piece of land adjacent to the above 00 piece of land, the compensation amount of which shall be calculated on the basis of the 0-1 piece of land adjacent to the above 0-2 piece of land, the compensation amount of which shall be calculated on the basis of 00 piece of land adjacent to the above 00-1 piece of land adjacent to the above 0-2 piece of land, the compensation amount of which shall be calculated on the basis of 00-1 piece of land adjacent to the above 00-2 piece of land adjacent to the original site.

However, since the part concerning the appraisal of the above 6 land was erroneous in the selection process of the reference land for each land as seen earlier, the evaluation of this part is not required to be examined more as to the appropriateness of the remaining evaluation methods such as the application of individual factors to this part. Thus, as to each land subject to the evaluation of this case, the evaluation of at least one of the two evaluations of the above 6 joint offices is illegal, so the ruling of this case, which is made in consideration of the above 2 evaluation results as well as the above 2 evaluation results, became unlawful. Ultimately, although the judgment of the court below was partly erroneous, the conclusion that the above ruling was unlawful is just in the conclusion that the above ruling was unlawful, and all of the arguments that there were errors in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the appraisal, or in the misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation are returned to the court below

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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