1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments to Chapter 5, Chapter 13, of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant’s land to be expropriated is designated as a buffer green area under Article 35 subparag. 1 of the Act on Green Areas, Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc., which is originally buffer green areas, to prevent air pollution, noise, vibration, malodor, and other pollution corresponding thereto, various accidents, natural disasters, and other disasters corresponding thereto, and the designation of buffer green areas has been cancelled only when the instant project was implemented. As such, assessment shall be conducted according to the status limited to buffer green areas pursuant to the main sentence of Article 23(1) and (2) of the Land Compensation Act.

Nevertheless, the court appraisal of the first instance court, which assessed the land to be expropriated by presenting the state in which there is no limit by the buffer green belt, is illegal.

Article 23(1) of the Land Compensation Act asserts that “The land subject to restrictions in public law shall be appraised according to the condition of restrictions.”

Provided, That where the restrictions on public law directly aim at the implementation of the relevant public works, it shall be assessed by considering the status in which there is no restriction.

"" is defined as ".

Therefore, when calculating the amount of compensation for land subject to restrictions in public law, if the restriction in public law itself is a general planning restriction that achieves the purpose of restriction, such as designation or alteration of a specific use area, district, or zone under the former Urban Planning Act, and is not directly related to a specific urban planning project, such restriction shall be evaluated as it is. However, it is an individual planning restriction that follows a specific project, such as a decision of planning for installing a specific urban planning facility