In appraising the value of land to be expropriated in the area where the standard land price is publicly announced, whether it is appropriate to take into account only the quotation of neighboring land without disclosing the transaction cases of similar similar land (negative)

In order to calculate the amount of compensation for losses incurred by the expropriation of land in the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, it is unlawful to consider only the price of the neighboring land without clarifying the transaction cases of the neighboring similar land after considering the normal transaction price, and simply considering the price of the neighboring land without clarifying the transaction cases.

Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Ethionets

The Central Land Tribunal Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor for the Intervenor

Hong Law Firm, Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu9342 delivered on March 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), in order to calculate the amount of compensation for losses incurred by the expropriation of land in an area in which the standard land price is publicly notified, the standard land price shall be based on the publicly notified standard land price, but the rate of land price fluctuation, wholesale price increase rate, normal transaction price and other matters of neighboring land unrelated to the relevant area shall be taken into consideration from the date of public announcement of the standard land price to the date of adjudication on the compensation for the relevant land use plan or neighboring land unrelated to the relevant area. Thus, considering normal transaction price of neighboring similar land in consideration of normal transaction price of neighboring land, it is unlawful to take into account the normal transaction price after making it clear whether there is a transaction case of neighboring land and take into account only the purchase period of neighboring land without identifying the transaction case (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu58

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when considering the normal market price of the neighboring similar land in consideration of the defendant's two appraisal reports based on the appraisal report of this case, the court below held that the land price level of "the neighboring house site" is 1,700,000 won or 1,80,000 won per average as of the time of the price, and the surrounding land is 50,000 won or above since the location conditions of the surrounding land are somewhat high, and that the land price of this case is 1,50,000 won or above, and that the land price of this case is 1,50,000 won or above is 1,50,000 won per average as of the end of 1988 and that the land price of this case is 1,00,000 won or above is 1,000,000 won per the end of 1988, and it is not 1,000,000 won per the above neighboring land.

The remaining arguments are the attacking of the judgment of the court below on the premise that the land price level of neighboring land indicated by the above two appraisal reports is an actual transaction case, so it cannot be accepted, and also the judgment cited by the arguments is different from the case of this case, and thus, it is not appropriate to this case.

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.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)