(a) Whether an objection is based on the result of appraisal not taking into account the normal market price of similar neighboring land, compensation example, etc. (negative);

B. Whether the transaction price under the sales contract of neighboring similar land that was concluded after the expropriation ruling is appropriate in appraising the land expropriation compensation price under the court order (affirmative)

A. The standard price shall be calculated based on the expropriation compensation amount for the land within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, but the reasonable price shall be calculated based on the calculation of all the price calculation factors cited in Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, taking into account the specific and comprehensive factors. Thus, the determination of this case is unlawful if the standard price is based on the appraisal results not reflected in the normal market price (level) price of similar land in the neighboring area or in the compensation line or in a reasonable method for the sale of adjacent land.

B. The appraisal result of an appraiser who evaluated the compensation amount for land expropriation under the order of the court is merely a reference material for comparison with the adjudication price. Thus, even if the appraiser reflects the transaction price of similar similar land that was entered into a sales contract concluded after the original adjudication that became the base point of time for appraisal, it cannot be deemed a false appraisal unless the price was formed in the speculative transaction of land or it is a normal transaction price that is not including development gains.

(b) Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu128 delivered on December 8, 1987 (Gong1988,288) 88Nu8647 delivered on December 27, 198 (Gong1989,248) 88Nu2496 delivered on May 23, 1989 (Gong1989,107) 88Nu10756 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989,1494) 89Nu4734 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong190,669)

Attorney Shin Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

[Defendant-Appellant] Housing Redevelopment Association, Defendant-Appellant and Defendant-Appellant joining the Defendant (Law Firm Woo-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu11072 delivered on March 27, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant:

According to Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989), the amount of compensation for the expropriation of land within the area where the standard land price is publicly notified shall be based on the publicly notified standard land price. However, the amount of compensation for the expropriation of land shall be based on the price determined based on the publicly notified standard land price from the date of the public announcement of the standard land price to the time of the determination of the amount of compensation, the rate of increase in the market price of neighboring land unrelated to the region, the normal market price of neighboring land, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree. 298.187.287.187.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant's determination of the compensation for expropriation of the land of this case was made as the basis for 44,971,200 won, and each appraisal of the joint offices of the Chang Chang Chang Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. on the basis of the calculation of compensation for damages of the above land did not reflect the normal market price of similar neighboring land or did not present specific standards on the method and degree of reflecting the calculation of compensation for damages of the above land, and it did not reflect all the matters stipulated in the above provision of this Act. Meanwhile, according to the result of the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the reasonable compensation for damages of the land of this case, which reflects the normal land price level expressed in the case of normal transactions of neighboring similar land, was appraised higher than the appraised

According to the records, the appraisal of the above land appraisal company's joint office is based on the land price rate, location ratification (10%) and other factors (20%) only on the standard land price, and the compensation amount was calculated by applying the land price fluctuation rate only to the standard land price, and the appraisal of the joint office of the land appraisal company is not deemed to have reflected the normal market price (land price level) price of neighboring similar land recognized by it, or the compensation preference or sale price of neighboring land in a less reasonable and reasonable manner, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the appraisal result of the appraiser's appraisal of the land expropriation under the order of the court. In addition, even if the appraisal of the reasonable compensation amount reflects the transaction price of neighboring land that was concluded after the original adjudication that became the base date for the appraisal, the appraisal price of the land cannot be deemed to be without merit, unless the speculative price of the land is formed in the transaction or it is not a mistake in the normal market price.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)