The standards for calculating compensation for losses caused by land expropriation;

In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the reasonable amount shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of adjudication of expropriation without considering the approval of a plan directly aiming at the execution of the relevant public project and the price fluctuation due to the

Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu113 Decided July 24, 1979 82Nu402 Decided September 13, 1983

Plaintiff

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1123 delivered on February 18, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below is just as the records that the reasonable price at the time of expropriation of the land of this case is 3,400 won for the land ( Address 1 omitted) and that the defendant's decision was made to determine the compensation amount for losses arising from expropriation in accordance with the standards of recognition of the land of this case as 3,950 won for the land of this case and 3,950 won for the land of this case, and that the measures of this case are acceptable. According to Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, the calculation of compensation amount arising from the expropriation of land shall be based on the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation and shall be based on the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, and in calculating the compensation amount pursuant to this provision, the reasonable amount shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without considering the approval of the plan directly aimed at the execution of the public project of this case and the price fluctuation arising from the announcement shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation (refer to each party member).

Based on the records, the court below examined the two types of evidence Nos. 3 and 4-2 used for recognizing the above compensation amount: (a) the Minister of Construction and Transportation announced the target area; and accordingly, (b) the land price was publicly announced as standard land price; and (c) the standard land price was publicly announced at the Defendant’s request to calculate the compensation amount for the expropriation of the land in this case within the target area; and (d) the situation that the land price was expropriated due to incorporation into the branch school of ○○○ University pursuant to Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, without considering the following factors: (a) the standard land price of the above standard land was determined from the date of the public announcement of the target area to the time of the determination of compensation amount; (b) the increase rate of land price of the neighboring land unrelated to the relevant area; (c) the increase rate of wholesale prices; (d) the neighboring land location of the land; (e) the neighboring land price of the land; and (e) there was no error in the misapprehension of evidence No. 12 and the appraisal evidence No. 181.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)