(a) Whether the appraisal and assessment factors, such as regional and individual factors, are not specified without specifying the reference land for the land to be expropriated (negative);

(b) Where the officially announced value of the reference land is not reflected in the natural land price increase rate that excludes development gains due to the combination of land prices due to the execution of the housing site development project, the land price is appropriate for appraisal taking into account the natural land price increase rate and other matters (affirmative);

(a) An appraisal which, without specifying the reference land for the land to be expropriated, makes it impossible to identify how the factors for calculating the amount of compensation are taken into account because regional and individual factors, etc. are not specified, shall not be deemed to have been lawfully assessed in accordance with the provisions of the law;

B. Where the officially announced value of reference land to be applied to the land to be expropriated fails to reflect the natural land price increase rate that excludes development gains as a result of the implementation of the housing site development project, it is acceptable to calculate the natural land price increase rate and take this into account as other matters.

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

(a) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5331 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992,2898). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3539 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991,1512) Decision 90Nu6316 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong191,1787)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The Central Land Tribunal and one other, the Defendants Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu21935 delivered on April 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that the appraisal of the two new appraisers' joint offices based on the calculation of the amount of compensation in the objection of this case cannot be recognized as being taken into account in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations since it did not specify the reference land for the land of this case and did not specify the regional and individual factors, etc., and thus, it cannot be viewed as being lawfully assessed in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the appraisal report made by the court below as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation, the appraiser's officially announced land price of standard land to be applied to the land to be expropriated in this case is not reflected in the natural land price increase ratio that excludes development gains from the relation where the land price was settled as a result of the execution of the housing site development project in this case. This appraisal is justified in calculating the natural land price increase ratio and considering it as other matters. Such appraisal is not reasonable, and there is an error of law that arbitrarily revises the officially announced land price or the land price fluctuation rate and includes development gains in the amount of compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5331 delivered on September 8, 192). The argument is without merit.

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.