[1] The standard for determining whether the individual land price is significantly unreasonable

[2] The case holding that the individual land price and the inflation rate of land prices of the pertinent land cannot be seen as being unreasonable compared to neighboring land

[3] Where multiple parcels of land are used as a site for the same building, etc., whether the price shall be assessed differently by parcel (negative)

[1] Whether the individual land price is considerably unreasonable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the developments leading up to the determination of the price, the rate of increase and decrease applied to the land characteristics to the same or similar neighboring land, the rate of increase and decrease in the land price of reference land and neighboring land whose characteristics are identical or similar to the same or similar characteristics, and the increase and decrease in the individual land price before and after the base year for

[2] The case holding that the average land price inflation rate from the year 1993 to the year 193 for the neighboring land in the 1993 and the average land price inflation rate from the year 1990 to the year 193 shall not be deemed to have been higher than 13,20,000,000 won and 41.48% of the land price of the pertinent land, the land price inflation rate of 13,20,000 square meters and 50% of the land price inflation rate of the neighboring land

[3] According to the provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), and Article 7 of the former Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (amended by the Prime Minister Directive No. 281 of Jul. 19, 1993) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), the individual land price is basically a comparison and evaluation of the objective utility values according to the characteristics of the land, such as the utilization status of the land in question, based on the officially announced land price of the reference land, if

[1] Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 12 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [2] Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 7 of the former Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Individual Land Prices and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by the Prime Minister No. 281 of Jul. 19, 193) / [3] Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195); Article 7 of the former Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu159 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1205), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2098 delivered on June 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2600), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu17935 delivered on June 25, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2404)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Woo General Law Office, Attorneys Gag-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu6491 delivered on October 25, 1996

The part of the lower judgment regarding the determination of individual land price in 1993 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal regarding the dismissed part are assessed against the Defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the determination of individual land price in 1993

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined as follows: (a) as of the facts in its holding, that the land was located near the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and adjoining to the Hague column; (b) the southwest side adjoining to roads with a width of 6 meters; and (c) the individual land price of the instant land used as a site for a building has increased by 50% between 190 and 193; (d) the land price of the instant land was connected to the East-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○-dong (number 1 omitted); (b) the (number 2 omitted); (c) the (number 3 omitted); (d) the land number of the said land was 19, 36, and 38 per cent for the same period; and (d) the land price of the instant land was 27 per cent for the same period; and (d) the land price of the instant land was 10/193 square meters for each of the instant land, and (d) the land price of the instant land was 3 omitted for the same period.

B. Whether the individual land price is remarkably unreasonable shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the developments leading up to the determination of the price, the rate of increase and decrease applied to the land characteristics to the same or similar neighboring land, the rate of increase and decrease applied to the standard land and land characteristics to the same or similar neighboring land, the increase and decrease of the individual land prices before and after the base year for the land in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu159, Mar. 11, 1994; 95Nu2098, Jun. 16, 1995; 93Nu17935, Jun. 25, 1996).

According to the records, the individual land price of the neighboring land in 193 and the inflation rate from 1990 to 193 is 15,20,00,000, 50% for the land (number 6 omitted), 13,200,000, 46.6% for the land (number 4 omitted), 13,200,000, 38.94% for the land (number 3 omitted), 12,70,000, 27% for the land of this case, and 47% for the land of this case (number 8 omitted) which are similar to the above land of this case, and the average inflation rate is 15,30,00,000, 27% for the land of this case, 300,000,000, 44.3% for the land of this case, and the average inflation rate is 30,000,000,000 won or more for the neighboring land of this case.

Furthermore, the court below determined that the individual land price on the land of this case is considerably unreasonable, as in the case of the land of this case, since the land of this case is used as the site for the building of 1 unit (land number 9 omitted), which is connected from the Hague to the north side of the building site of 15 to the site for the business of the 19th floor), but the two lots of land (land number 10 omitted) and the three lots of land (land number 11 omitted) which are divided into several lots of lots of land, the land of this case not abutting on the Gu Hague has been assessed at a low price. Thus, the court below determined that the individual land price of this case was considerably unreasonable as the price of the land of this case under Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195), since the appraisal price of the land of this case is substantially identical to or similar to the price of the land of the same site of this case.

C. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the individual land price in 1993 was remarkably unreasonable compared to the neighboring land is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of individual land price, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the determination of individual land price in 1990

The defendant filed an appeal against the individual land price determination portion of the judgment below in 1990. However, there is no indication in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief in the grounds of appeal as to this, and this part of the appeal is without merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding the determination of individual land price in 1993 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)