(a) Method of comparing the regional factors in calculating the compensation for losses of the land to be expropriated;

(b) whether the ratification rate under the “Land Price Ratification Schedule” issued by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation may be applied as the comparison value of the regional factors in paragraph (a);

(a) In calculating the amount of compensation for losses of the land to be expropriated as one of the processes for calculating the compensation for losses, where the reference land, the local factors of the land to be expropriated, and the local factors of the reference land, like comparing the difference between the land to be expropriated and the land characteristics of the reference land in the case of individual factors, shall also be compared with each regional characteristics of the region to which the land to be expropriated belongs and the region to

(b) “Land Price Ratification Schedule” in the issuance of the Construction Book is not provided as data to calculate individual land price, but is not a standard for calculating the amount of compensation due to land expropriation. In particular, the Land Price Ratification Schedule appears to be an individual factor rather than an expression of the difference between the standard land price and the characteristics of the land in calculating the individual land price, and rather, it appears that the difference between the standard land price and the characteristics of the land in calculating the amount of compensation due to land expropriation is an expression of ratification rate, and thus, it cannot be applied as the comparison value of regional factors.

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991); Article 10 (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Central Land Tribunal and one other, the Defendants (Law Firm Yyeongyang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu20625 delivered on January 19, 1993

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

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

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated in this case on the ground that each appraisal by the Japanese Certified Public appraiser and the ordinary certified public appraiser's joint office, which is based on the calculation of compensation in this case, is not a legitimate appraisal, since the local factors and individual factors are not specified and it is impossible to determine whether the amount of compensation was properly calculated because the relevant regional factors and individual factors are not specified, and therefore, the appraisal by the non-party appraiser in the court below is appropriate in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

2. However, the appraisal method of the original court’s expert witness employed by the court below is not acceptable in the following respect.

(1) As one of the processes for calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the land to be expropriated, in order to prepare for the regional factors and individual factors of the reference land and the land to be expropriated, the regional factors, like comparing the difference between the land to be expropriated and the land characteristics of the reference land itself, should also be compared with the regional characteristics of the region to which the land to be expropriated belongs and the region to which the reference land belongs.

However, according to the records, since the land and the reference land of this case are both forest and forest within a natural green area, it should have compared the regional factors of the forest area, for example, the local factors of the area where the land and the reference land are located according to the access conditions, natural conditions, administrative conditions, and other conditions, etc. However, in comparing the regional factors of the land of this case and the reference land of this case, the appraiser of the court below presumed that in comparing the regional factors of the reference land of this case, the price of the housing zone within the station of the reference land and the price of the housing zone where the land of this case are located should be compared and analyzed (Records 202 of the record, it is unclear what means the "housing Zone Price", but in short, it seems that the land category of the reference land of this case and the reference land of this case means the price of the land of the substitute land of this case for comparison analysis, and then the result of comparing the regional factors of the new comparative land between them through the logical manipulation as stated above is applied as the comparative factors of the land of this case and reference land of this case.

(2) As to the testimony of the court below that it is difficult for the appraiser of the court below to directly compare the local factors of the reference land and the land due to the fact that the forest land in the area where the land of this case is located has not been formed by entering the park site, since all the forest land in which the land of this case is located, it is difficult to directly compare the local factors of the reference land and the land (No. 271 of the record). Thus, in order to calculate the compensation amount of compensation for losses of the land of this case, it goes through logical manipulation such as selecting a comparative standard site and considering other factors through the comparison of the reference land with the reference land of reference land after changing the point of time to the reference land price of reference land, and whether the land of this case is not formed since it is incorporated into the park site, it shall not

(3) Furthermore, the lower court’s appraiser selected the substitute land located in the general residential area as the comparative standard site for the instant land and selected the substitute land as the comparative standard site for the reference land. In light of the impact that the land to be expropriated is located in the urban planning area on the price formation of the land, it shall be deemed that the specific use area of the instant land was selected more favorable than the standard land area, and thus, it shall be deemed that the specific use area of the instant land was wrong.

(4) On the other hand, in applying comparative values of local factors, the court below's appraiser applies the price distribution rate under the "Land Price Ratification Table" issued by the Construction Book. The above land price ratification table is provided as data to calculate individual land price, and it does not constitute the standard for calculating the amount of compensation according to land expropriation. In particular, the above land price ratification table shows the difference between the standard land price and the land characteristics in calculating individual land price, rather than the difference between the standard land price and the land characteristics in calculating the amount of compensation due to land expropriation, and therefore, it appears that individual factors are related to individual factors. Thus, the court below's appraiser cannot apply the ratification rate as it is, even though it can not apply to the calculation of the amount of compensation due to land expropriation, it erred in applying it as it is.

Despite the above circumstances, the court below's determination of the compensation amount of the land of this case by adopting the appraisal result of the above appraiser as it is is is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appraisal amount of the land to be expropriated or in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a ground

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)