[1] Whether the individual land price can be determined each year for the land in the land readjustment project execution district (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that even if there are circumstances such as restrictions on the use and profit-making of land in the Land Readjustment Project Act as it falls under the land within the land readjustment project execution district, the head of a local government is justified in the determination of individual land price for

[3] Method of calculating individual land price for land in a land readjustment project district

[1] In full view of Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195), Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and Article 14 of the former Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by the Prime Minister Directive No. 281 of Jul. 19, 193), the Minister of Construction and Transportation determines the individual land price of the land subject to taxation in 192, 193, and 194, the administrative agency shall determine the individual land price of the land subject to taxation every year, and shall not be deemed any land within the district where the land readjustment

[2] The case holding that since there are circumstances such as that the pertinent land falls under the land within the execution district of the land readjustment project and its use and profit is limited under the Land Readjustment Project Act, the other registration is prohibited from being made until the land substitution registration is made after the land substitution disposition is publicly announced, and the liquidation money shall not be calculated only when the land substitution is determined when the land substitution is determined, and since the individual land price at the time of the public announcement of the execution of the land readjustment project is not maintained for the period until the land substitution becomes final and conclusive, the determination of individual land price at the time of the public announcement of the execution of the land readjustment project shall not be deemed null and void for the pertinent land made by the head

[3] According to Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195) and Article 7 of the former Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (amended by the Prime Minister Directive No. 281 of Jul. 19, 193) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), the individual land price is basically a comparison and assessment of objective utility values according to the characteristics of the land, such as the current use of the land, based on the officially announced land price of the reference land. Unless there are special circumstances in light of the purport of Article 57(1) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, the individual land price calculation of the land in the land within the land readjustment project zone shall be calculated by comparing and investigating the characteristics of the previous land having the right to use and benefit from the land.

[1] Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195), Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 14 of the former Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 281 of Jul. 19, 193) / [2] Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 14 of the former Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Jul. 19, 193) / [3] Article 9 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.

Plaintiff 1 and nine others (Attorneys Lee J-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Metropolitan City Mine;

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Gu1216 delivered on July 25, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 14 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Price of Individual Land in 192, 193, and 194 determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 14 of the Guidelines, administrative agencies shall determine the price of individual land for land subject to taxation every year and shall not regard it as land within the implementation district of the land readjustment project.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the land in this case falls under the land within the execution district of the land readjustment project and its use and profit is limited under the Land Readjustment Project Act, and another registration is prohibited until the registration of land substitution is made after the land substitution disposition is announced, and the liquidation money is decided after the land substitution disposition is made, even if there are circumstances such as the land substitution disposition is decided, the individual land price can not be calculated only when the land substitution is decided, and since the individual land price at the time of the public announcement of the execution of the land readjustment project during the period until the land substitution becomes final and conclusive is not maintained as it is, the individual land price at the time of the public announcement of the execution of the land readjustment project is not maintained for the period until the land substitution becomes final and conclusive, the

2. On the second ground for appeal

Under Articles 9 and 10 of the Act and Article 7 of the former Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Price of each Land (amended by the Prime Minister Directive No. 281 of July 19, 193), the individual land price is basically compared and assessed based on the officially announced land price of standard land in accordance with the characteristics of the land, such as the use of the land in question, and the objective utility value according to the characteristics of the land is based on the land. Article 57 (1) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act provides that "where a reserved land for replotting has been designated, the owner and lessee of the previous land may exercise the same rights as that of the previous land from the effective date of the designation of the reserved land for replotting until the date of the public announcement of the replotting plan, and shall not use or profit from the previous land, unless there are special circumstances, the individual land price of the land in the zone for replotting and rearrangement project shall be determined as a substitute land. Thus, if the previous land owner has the right to use and profit from the reserved land at the time of the public announcement of replotting plan after its effect.

According to the records, the decision of the court below is justifiable to have determined that the measure of calculating the land price of the instant land by comparing and investigating the characteristics of the instant land ( Address 3 omitted) as the comparative standard for the land in 1993 and 194 before the implementation of the land readjustment project is legitimate, since the land price of the instant land was designated as the temporary parcel number at the time of calculating the land price of the 1993 and 1994, but the land substitution was effective as at the time of calculating the individual land price of the instant land. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or violating the rules of evidence, etc., as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)