(a) Criteria for calculating the compensation for losses of land to be expropriated;

B. Application scope of Article 18(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Ordinance No. 419 of May 21, 1987)

(a) In full view of the provisions of Article 29(1), Article 29(2), Article 3(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the standard land price is publicly announced, it is not appropriate to calculate the compensation for losses based on the standard land price of the standard land by category of land to be expropriated if the land category is the former, field, site, forest, and miscellaneous land, the compensation for losses should be based on the standard land price of the standard land by category of land to be expropriated.

B. The provisions of Article 18(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of National Territory No. 419 of May 21, 1987) shall be excluded in the case of land category subject to expropriation of the whole land, field, site, forest, and miscellaneous land.

Articles 29(1), 29(2), 29(3), and 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 18(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Ordinance No. 419 of May 21, 1987)

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu45 delivered on July 7, 1987

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Jong-su, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu10 delivered on September 23, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the provisions of Article 29(1), Article 29(2), 2, 3, and 5 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in case of expropriation of land in an area where the standard land price is publicly announced, compensation for losses should be calculated on the basis of the standard land price for the standard land by category of land in which land is previously, paddy field, site, forest land, and miscellaneous land. It is not appropriate that the compensation amount should be calculated on the basis of the standard land price for the standard land by category of land in which land is not the standard land price, but the standard land price for the standard land in neighboring

Therefore, in the same purport, even though the land category of the land to be expropriated in this case is forest and field, the court below's determination of the compensation amount based on the standard land price of neighboring land is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged.

Article 18 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 419 of May 21, 1987) provides that the land category of the land to be expropriated shall be excluded from the application of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory in the case of land subject to expropriation, paddy field

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)