(a) Where a natural inflation rate of land has not been reflected in the officially announced land price as at the time the expropriation or ruling of the reference land was made, a portion of the compensation for losses calculated on the basis of such officially announced land price;

(b) Whether the calculation of compensation based on the officially announced value of the reference land, the use or form or quality of which has been changed due to the implementation of the public works violates the purport of Article 17(2) of the Appraisal Regulations.

A. Even if the natural inflation rate of land price excluded from the development gains on the officially announced land price at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the reference land within an area where the relevant public works were implemented due to a dynamic relation to the implementation of the relevant public works, as long as the compensation amount for the land to be expropriated is calculated by taking account of such natural inflation rate and other factors, the compensation amount for the land to be expropriated cannot be calculated on the basis of the officially announced land price at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the reference land as long as it satisfies the requirements as the

B. Even if the use or form and quality of the reference land in the area where the relevant public works are implemented were changed due to the implementation of the relevant public works, if it can be confirmed by other data that the current state of the reference land at the time of the date of the relevant public works, calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the land to be expropriated on the basis of the officially announced land value at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the reference land does not conflict with

Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991); Article 17(2) of the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Plaintiff 2, Pacific Law Firm Kim & Lee, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Central Land Tribunal and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu21024 delivered on January 15, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on each of the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

Article 4(1) of the Act on Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Land, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Notice Act”) and Article 17(1) of the Regulations on Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Land, Etc., which provide that the standard land price shall be selected from among lands recognized as generally similar to the land use status or surrounding environment, and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes provide that the compensation for losses for the land to be expropriated shall be calculated based on the officially announced land price of the reference land located in the same or adjacent areas, such as the land concerned, land use, land category, surrounding environment, etc., shall be interpreted as having been appraised based on the officially announced land price at the time of the public notice of the land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Land Act. Thus, even if the price of the land to be expropriated has not been determined based on the previously announced land price of the reference land at the time of execution of the public service, the compensation for losses shall not be calculated based on the previously announced land price of the reference land at the time of execution of the public service, as long as it is not based on the purport of the publicly announced land price of the reference land.

The decision of the court below with the purport of this is just and acceptable, and it is not acceptable to argue that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of the reference land, or in the violation of the rules on illegality or appraisal and evaluation against the rules against the plaintiff's assertion, on the premise that it is not allowed to calculate the compensation amount for the land to be expropriated on the basis of the officially announced land price at the time of the decision to expropriate the reference land where development gains have not been excluded from the officially announced land price at the time of the decision to expropriate the reference land due to the execution of the relevant public works.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

Examining the relevant evidence compared with the records, the judgment of the court below which judged that the transaction case offered by the plaintiff was not recognized as a normal transaction case of similar similar land that can be considered in calculating the compensation amount for losses for the land to be expropriated in this case shall not be deemed to have violated the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and therefore there is no reason for the conclusion.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)