(a) Whether the standard land price for the expropriated land is not specified and the factors for calculating the amount of compensation are not specified, such as regional and individual factors (negative);

(b) The amount of compensation for some of the items among the items for which an administrative litigation is filed with respect to the amount of land expropriation compensation is insufficient, and the amount of compensation for other items is excessive (affirmative).

A. An appraisal which does not specify the reference land for the expropriated land and does not specify the factors such as regional and individual factors, and thus makes it impossible to identify how the factors were taken into account, cannot be deemed to have been lawfully assessed in accordance with the provisions of the law.

B.Article 45(2) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that compensation due to the expropriation or use of land shall be made individually by the victim except when it is impossible to compute the amount of compensation for each individual by the victim. Thus, compensation shall not be made by the object of expropriation or use, but by the victim's individual. Thus, where the victim objects only to a part of the object of expropriation, the victim may institute an administrative litigation by asserting the grounds for objection only to that part. However, where the amount of compensation for a part of the object of administrative litigation is insufficient, and the amount of compensation for another item is excessive, the amount of compensation shall be determined by adding up the excessive and insufficient portion by allowing the utilization between that items.

(a)Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Articles 45(2) and 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act ;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3539 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1512), 90Nu6316 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1787)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

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

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu11839 delivered on March 4, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the disposition of the court below which held that the factors cannot be viewed as being legally assessed in accordance with the provisions of statutes since the appraisal of the two joint appraisers of ○○○ and △△△△ based on the calculation of the compensation amount is not specified in detail, and all of the appraisal factors of the two joint appraisers of ○○ and △△△△ were not specified in the standard for the land of this case, and it is impossible to identify how the factors were considered, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 17(1) of the Appraisal Regulations, the appraisal of land shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the land price rate, price increase rate, and other matters from the basic date to the date of the price, based on the officially announced value of reference land located in the same or adjacent areas such as the land concerned, its use, land category, surrounding environment, etc. In addition, Article 17(1)2 of the said Rules provides that an appraisal of land shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the land price rate, price increase rate, and other matters from the basic date to the date of the price, and Article 17(6)2 of the said Rules provides as one of other matters pursuant to the above paragraph(1) of the said Article. Therefore, the lower court’s appraiser’s determination of urban planning, alteration, or implementation of the urban planning project shall be deemed as one of the land in this case’s land in the military area where the land price is located within the designated land development area and the land price is almost equal, and it is not acceptable to reflect the land price increase in the whole period of the military area where the land price increase occurred.

On the third ground for appeal

Article 45 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that compensation for expropriation or use of land shall be paid individually to the person who is to be compensated except when it is impossible to calculate the compensation individually by the person who is to be compensated. Thus, compensation shall not be paid by objects subject to expropriation or use, but by individual of the person who is to be compensated.

Therefore, if there is an objection only against a part of the object to be expropriated, the victim can file an administrative suit by asserting the reason for objection only against that part. However, if the compensation amount for a part of the object to be expropriated is underfinite, and the compensation amount for another item is excessive, the compensation amount shall be determined by adding up the excessive and underfinite parts by allowing utilization between the items.

However, the judgment of the court below, on its reasoning, cannot be deemed to have been lawfully assessed pursuant to the provisions of the law, since the appraisal by the two appraisal offices, which form the basis of the judgment of this case, cannot be deemed to have been lawfully assessed, the judgment of this case which set the average amount of compensation, was unlawful. In the judgment on the increase or decrease of compensation, with respect to the land No. 5 out of the land of this case, the amount stipulated in the judgment of this case shall be deemed to be a legitimate compensation just on the ground that the compensation stipulated in the judgment of this case exceeds the appraised amount by the original appraiser. In calculating the amount to be additionally paid to the plaintiffs, the above excessive portion shall be deemed to have been ordered to be paid only by adding up the excessive portion without deduction. This cannot be deemed to have misunderstanding the legal principles as to the subject matter of lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of compensation as stipulated in Article 75-2

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)