[1] In a case where a project operator publicly announced a land record which was investigated into the status of land use along with a compensation plan and individually notified the owner, etc. of the subject matter, whether the Central Land Expropriation Committee must be based on the status of use as indicated in the relevant land record in determining a legitimate compensation for losses (negative)

[2] Whether it is presumed that a building was registered as a building on an unauthorized building management ledger, and that the building was constructed by lawful procedures, or that the site of the building was changed legally (negative)

[3] Evaluation methods for land change of form and quality due to the enforcement of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Losses amended on January 7, 1995

[1] In full view of the provisions of Article 5-2, Article 5-3, and Article 5-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss of Land, Article 23, and Article 24 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act, the Central Land Expropriation Committee does not necessarily have to make a determination of legitimate compensation for losses to the owner, etc. of the subject matter, even if the project implementer publicly announced the land report that investigated the status of land use under the Enforcement Rule of the Land Expropriation Act, along with the compensation plan and individually notified the owner, etc

[2] Since an unauthorized building management ledger is prepared by the competent authority at the managing level of an unauthorized building within a development-restricted zone, in light of the purpose, form, management status, etc. of the above ledger, it cannot be presumed that the building was constructed by lawful procedures or that the site of the building was legitimately changed in its form and quality.

[3] In assessing land that has been illegally changed or changed in form and quality since the enforcement of Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss of Loss on January 7, 1995, it is an exception to the principle of evaluation according to the actual use at the pricing point, and the time of changing the form and quality of the land at the time of the implementation of Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, regardless of whether the time of changing the form and quality is before or after the implementation of the said Act. However, under Article 6(4) of the Addenda of the said Act, it is necessary to evaluate the illegal change in the form and quality of the land already incorporated in the public project implementation zone at the time of its implementation according to the actual utilization (i.e.

[1] Article 5-2, Article 5-3, and Article 5-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss, Article 23, and Article 24 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 29 of the Building Act / [3] Article 2-10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Loss, Article 6 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Loss,

[3] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7121 decided Feb. 8, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 696) Supreme Court Decision 2000Du8325 decided Sep. 4, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2349)

Plaintiff 1 and eight others (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Law Firm Ho, Attorneys Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu16083 delivered on November 21, 200

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. In full view of the provisions of Article 5-2, Article 5-3, and Article 5-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act on the Compensation and Loss of Land (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Special Act”), Articles 23 and 24 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act, as the premise of the acquisition by consultation, the project operator publicly announced the land use of the land along with the compensation plan and individually notified the owners, etc. of the objects under the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act, the Central Land Expropriation Committee does not necessarily have to be based on the status of the land use as indicated in the land use in determining the legitimate

The court below found the facts of the judgment after compilingyang-si conducted an investigation into the use of the land No. 1 in accordance with the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law, and notified the plaintiffs that the actual use of the land No. 1 is 26,208 m2,51 m2,51 m2, 970 m2, 484 m2.

2. The unauthorized Building Management Register is prepared by the competent authority at the managing level of an unauthorized building within a development-restricted zone. As such, in light of the purpose of preparing the above register, form of preparation, management status, etc., and on the ground that the building is registered as a building, it cannot be presumed that the building was constructed by lawful procedures, or that the site of the building was legitimately altered in form and quality. The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is rejected.

3. With respect to the evaluation of land which has been illegally altered in form and quality since the enforcement of Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act on 7 January 1995, the evaluation of land which has been altered in form and quality is an exception to the evaluation principles based on the actual utilization at the pricing point, and the said alteration of form and quality shall be evaluated by presenting and evaluating the utilization status as at the time when the said land will be altered in form and quality regardless of whether before or after the enforcement of Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act on Maritime Affairs. However, in accordance with Article 2-10(2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act on Maritime Affairs (i.e., the current use after the alteration of form and quality) as at the pricing point pursuant to Article 2-10(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Special Act on Maritime Affairs on 8 February 202.

The court below found that the land 1, including the site portion of an unauthorized building, was incorporated into a public project implementation zone around May 1997, which was after the enforcement of Article 6 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases, based on its evidence, and held that even if the remaining part of the land excluding the site portion of an unauthorized building among the land 1 was illegally changed on or before January 24, 1989, it cannot be deemed unlawful to evaluate the land 1 which was incorporated into a public project implementation zone after the enforcement of Article 6 (6) of the above Enforcement Rule as the land 1 was incorporated into a public project implementation zone after the implementation of Article 6 (6) of the above Enforcement Rule. In light of the records and related Acts and subordinate statutes and the above legal principles, the above determination of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as to the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases, and Article 2-10 of the

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)