Lee-chul (Attorney Kang Dong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal 1

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Central Land Expropriation”) dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection with respect to the expropriation of each land and goods listed in the attached Table 1, 201 with respect to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2001, the part corresponding to the following money shall be revoked. Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the Plaintiff 6,748,738,900 won per annum from April 28, 2001 to the sentencing date of this case, and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Details of the ruling on an objection;

(a) Approval for and announcement of projects;

- - Coast International Airport Development Projects

- Notice No. 2000-12, September 14, 2000 of the Seoul Regional Aviation Authority Notice No. 2000-28, May 26, 2000

(b) Enterpriser: Defendant Republic of Korea (Seoul Regional Aviation Office);

C. Acceptance ruling by the defendant Jung-gu on March 22, 2001

- Subject to expropriation: Land and obstacles listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter referred to as the land of this case and the obstacles of this case);

- Timing of expropriation: April 27, 2001

- Compensation for losses: 213,686,100 won (the instant land KRW 179,261,100 + the obstacles of this case KRW 34,425,00)

D. On August 21, 2001, the instant objection ruling by the Defendant Central Land Tribunal

- The content of the ruling: The increase in the land of this case and the dismissal of the claim for purchase of the land listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "the remaining land of this case"), except that the compensation for the obstacles of this case shall be increased to KRW 36,119,000

-Appraisal Body: Pacific Appraisal Corporation and Dong State Appraisal Corporation

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant objection or each appraisal based thereon is defective, such as: (a) the different land and specific-use area of the instant land are selected as a comparative standard site; (b) the assessment of the instant land is conducted by calculating the value of bonds and other factors without reflecting similar compensation precedents and the development status of hot spring water; (c) the claim for expropriation of the remaining land of this case and the claim for compensation for losses, such as price decline arising from the remaining land of this case; (c) the Plaintiff did not calculate the investment cost and future operating profit; and (d) the reasonable amount of compensation is an amount calculated by adding at least KRW 6,748,738,90 to the amount of compensation recognized in the instant objection; and (e) the amount of compensation is first, the amount equivalent to six,748,738,900 among the parts dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection in the instant decision.

3. Whether the ruling on an objection is lawful.

(a) Whether the selection of comparative standards is appropriate;

(1) According to the results of the appraisal commission on March 25, 2002 for land subject to the comparison standard and specific use area, land category, land use (actual use), surrounding environment, location, and other natural and social conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du10391, Jul. 13, 2001, etc.), Eul 1 and 2-1 and 2-2, and for this courtless appraisal corporation, etc., the appraisal agency of this case (Pacific), as compared with the appraisal agency of this case, the appraisal agency of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "UP"), and the land category and surrounding area of this case (as to the land indicated in attached Table 1(a), 130-1(attached Table 1(c)) selected and assessed the land of this case (the same as appraiser), the land category, area of each land of this case, road traffic, surrounding environment, etc. of this case, the land category and surrounding area of this case-1 and 30-14(the land category and surrounding area of this case-1-1) are not indicated as follows.

[Attachment 1] Each land of this case

In the case of this case, land category size in attached Table 1 attached Table 1, which is located within the specific use area, and road traffic shape in the environment surrounding the specific use area of the land located within the specific use area of 808-1, 99, 200 square meters in each of the instant land, and rural area surrounding the rural area in the area adjacent to the agricultural, forestry, and Do road located within orchard 808-10, 7, 961, 200 square meters in each of the instant case, and the rural area surrounding the rural area located within the rural area adjacent to orchard 152-52, 1,312, 312, 30 square meters in each of the instant land 2 in each of the instant case.

[Attachment 2] Compared Land

The length of a rural area surrounding a quasi-agricultural and forestry local highway located in the area of land category in the main sentence, which is located in the area of the land category in the area of the land in the rural area, shall be the 21,124-17-2, 17-2, 222-1, 130-1, 130-1, 2124-1, 2124-1, 124, 124;

(b) Whether the correction of other factors is appropriate; and

(1) Whether the transaction case is considered

The plaintiff purchased the above land from the defendant Republic of Korea on or around August 1999 with respect to the 152-52,115 square meters of the land prior to the subdivision of the land listed in the attached Table 1 C (Liriririsan 152-52), which was based on the appraisal by the appraisal agency (40,000 square meters) at the time of the appraisal by the defendant Republic of Korea (the competent authority: the Seobu District Forest Management Office) on or around August 1999. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the land in this case should be calculated on the basis of 40,000 square meters per square meter. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above land should be purchased from the defendant Republic of Korea, while considering the fact that the price actually paid by the plaintiff as purchase price was 724,60,000,000 won (4/40,000,000 won) in the land before the subdivision, the plaintiff's assertion that the price of the land in this case was 10,00,0,00,0,00.

(2) Whether the development status of hot spring water is considered

According to the records of Gap 13,14 (including the provisional number) and the results of the survey and appraisal by the appraiser Kim Young-young appraisal corporation of this court on March 25, 2002 and June 21, 2002, the plaintiff reported the development and utilization of groundwater to develop and utilize groundwater on the remaining land of this case and received a report from the non-permanent head of Si/Gun around May 25, 1995. At around that time, although the plaintiff was found to have laid five hot spring holess for the development of hot spring on the remaining land of this case, it is difficult to conclude that there was a hot spring on the remaining land of this case at the time of the decision of expropriation of this case to a certain extent, and it is difficult to conclude that there was an objective factor toward the formation of land price. The plaintiff's assertion is groundless

(3) On the other hand, each appraisal by the appraisal authority (Pacific, East and East) applied a value lower than 3.0 (2.9) applied by the court appraiser (with respect to the instant land as a correction of other factors for the instant land. However, the said appraisal is deemed to have been duly calculated and applied by taking into account the same compensation appraisal case into account, and there is no other ground for illegality in the appraisal authority’s evaluation.

(c) Whether it is unlawful with respect to individual factors, non-libation, etc.;

(1) The land of this case 1

The appraisal of the appraisal institution of this case and the appraisal of this court in both of the appraisal of this case are an irregular type, while the shape of the above land was considered to be favorable in terms of the conditions of land erosion. However, the appraisal institution of this case was 20% high, and the court appraisal institution was 30% high. However, each appraisal by the appraisal institution of this case and the court appraiser of this case is consistent with the opinion as to the factors of price assessment except for the difference between the above other factors and the appraisal by both the appraisal institution and the same land as the comparison standard. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the percentage of the above land should not be deemed to be 20%, but 30%. Thus, the ruling of this case cannot be deemed to be unlawful.

(2) The two land of this case

In assessing access conditions based on accessibility to the village and the state of the farm road, both the appraisal institutions and the court appraiser of the objection of this case are ordinarily the accessibility to the village of the above land as compared standards. While the state of the farm road is regarded as "Dong" in the gap rate, the appraisal institutions are evaluated as "25% by the court appraiser". However, as long as the specific grounds for evaluating that the court appraiser was friendly, it cannot be readily concluded that the access conditions of the above land should be regarded as equal rather than equal. Thus, the ruling on the above land cannot be deemed unlawful.

(3) The land of this case 3

이 사건 이의재결 감정기관들 및 법원 감정인은 모두 인근취락과의 접근성, 임도의 배치,폭,구조 등의 상태를 기초로 접근조건을 평가함에 있어서 이의재결 감정기관들은 위 토지가 취락과의 접근성은 비교표준지보다 ‘양호’하나 임도의 배치,폭,구조 등의 상태는 비교표준지와 마찬가지로 ‘보통’으로 보아 위 토지가 20% 내지 25% 우세로 평가한 반면, 법원 감정인은 위 토지가 취락과의 접근성 및 임도의 배치,폭,구조 등의 상태에 있어서 ‘모두 양호’한 것으로 보아 46%우세로 평가하였는바, 법원 감정인이 위 토지를 임도의 배치,폭,구조 등의 상태에서 비교표준지보다 양호한 것으로 판단한 근거를 알 수 있는 자료가 없는 이상 우세의 비율을 반드시 20% 내지 25%가 아닌 46%로 보아야 한다고 단정할 수 없고, 자연조건 또한 위 감정기관들이 모두 위 토지가 인근해수욕장 주변으로 모두 우세하다고 하면서 우세정도에 있어서 차이가 나는바(이의재결 감정기관들 25% 내지 30%우세 ↔ 법원 감정인 30% 우세), 이의재결 감정기관들의 평가에 별다른 위법사유를 찾아볼 수 없는 이상 우세의 비율을 반드시 30%로 보아야 한다고 단정할 수 없으므로, 위 토지에 관한 이의재결이 위법하다고 할 수 없다.

(d) Whether the expenses incurred by the renunciation of the tourism business and the future sales profit are considered; and

According to Gap 4 through 14 (including provisional number), Gap 17 through 20 (including temporary number), and Eul 5 through 7, the plaintiff purchased the land and remaining land of this case from December 1987 to April 5, 1990. On December 1994, Jeonnam-do branch of this case selected Jeonnam-do as a small-scale private-use recreation facility. Since the plaintiff paid construction design cost for resort facilities, development cost of groundwater development, etc., from October 5, 1995 to January 5, 197, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-Gun of January 15, 1997 did not use the land of this case as a small tourism and resort development implementer, but did not use the land of this case as a specific-use area under the premise that the remaining land of this case was not changed to a specific-use area of this case, and the plaintiff did not use the land of this case, but did not use it as a specific-use area of this case.

E. Whether to accept the remaining land

(1) Article 48(1) main sentence of the Land Expropriation Act provides that when it is substantially difficult to use the remaining land for its original purpose because part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner is purchased by consultation or expropriated, the owner of the land concerned may request the public project operator to purchase the whole group of land or request the competent Land Tribunal to expropriate the whole group of land. Whether the remaining land constitutes “when it is substantially difficult to use the remaining land for its original purpose” should not be determined on the basis of actual and specific usage of the land, but on the basis of its land category, status, specific use area

(2) As examined in the above paragraph (c) above, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land and the remaining land at the time of the instant ruling of expropriation, was carrying out the business of some facilities without being designated as the implementer of the tourism business. Thus, the purpose of the remaining land at the time of the instant ruling of expropriation is to say that the previous purpose of the instant ruling of expropriation is a transfer of land, site, forest land, etc. according to the actual utilization situation, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the previous purpose of the remaining land is a site for tourism facilities is groundless (this is merely a subjective purchase purpose

F. Whether the remaining land is compensated for losses

In full view of the results of the survey and appraisal by appraiser Kim Young-young and the purport of the present court's request for appraisal on June 21, 2002, the remaining land of this case due to the expropriation of this case did not have a big change in the shape of the remaining land in an irregular form. Furthermore, considering the traffic situation, area (as regards the land acquired for expropriation, about 22% of the entire land of this case), location, specific use area, etc. of the remaining land of this case, it is difficult to conclude that any obstacle exists to the use or profit-making due to the actual use situation (such as pre-site, land, and forest) at the time of the decision to expropriate the remaining land of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was a fall in the value of the remaining land due to the expropriation of this case. Thus, the plaintiff'

G. Whether the assessment of the goods is appropriate (such as the Plaintiff did not modify the purport of the claim, it will be additionally examined).

According to the court's entrustment of appraisal on March 25, 2002 with respect to the non-official appraisal appraisal corporation of this case, the compensation amount for the obstacles of this case was increased to 39,525,000 won at the time of the ruling (36,119,000 won). However, although the appraisal report of this court is recognized as having increased more than the time of the ruling, the appraisal report of this case evaluated the obstacles of this case as soon as possible without specifying the detailed grounds for the specific grounds for the assessment. Rather, the Pacific appraisal corporation, which is the appraisal agency of this case, provides detailed grounds for each training, it cannot be concluded that

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Il-sung(Presiding Judge)