(a) Where normal market price of neighboring similar land may be considered in calculating the amount of compensation for land expropriation under Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act and Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act;

(b) The meaning of normal transaction price of similar neighboring land;

C. Where the transaction price or compensation price of similar neighboring land is a normal transaction price or compensation price, whether such price can be considered in calculating the compensation amount even after the date of adjudication of expropriation (affirmative)

(d) Whether the natural and social conditions, such as the actual state of use, are identical or similar, even if the land to be expropriated and the adjacent similar land are different in the urban planning (affirmative), the normal market price of the neighboring land may be considered (affirmative);

A. Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991) does not necessarily stipulate that the normal market price of similar land should be taken into consideration in calculating the amount of compensation for the damage of a land to be expropriated. Thus, in calculating the amount of compensation for the damage of a land to be expropriated pursuant to Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, it shall not be always taken into account by examining whether there is a transaction of neighboring similar land or whether the transaction price was made in ordinary transactions. However, if there is a case in which neighboring land was traded or there is a case in which the transaction price or the compensation price was normal and it is proved that it could affect the calculation of the amount

(b) The term "normal transaction price of similar neighboring land" means the price formed in an ordinary transaction with respect to land identical or similar to the land to be expropriated in the vicinity of the land to be expropriated, such as the specific use area, land category, grade, land register, form, status of use, law, restriction, etc., which is not the price formed in an speculative transaction but is not

C. In assessing the price to calculate the amount of compensation for land expropriation by an appraisal business entity or appraiser, the appraisal cannot be deemed erroneous unless the sale contract was concluded or the compensation amount was determined based on the transaction price or the compensation amount of neighboring similar land, not formed in speculative transaction, even if the transaction price or the compensation amount of neighboring land revealed in the cases that become the base point for appraisal.

(d) Where natural and social conditions, such as the actual state of utilization, are identical or similar even if the land to be expropriated and the neighboring similar land are different in the urban planning, normal market price of the neighboring land may be taken into account;

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6921 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong1993,991), 92Nu795 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong1993,173). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8562 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992,308), 92Nu584 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong1993,478), 92Nu1763 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993,1023) 91Nu2397 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong192,197Nu93979 delivered on September 19, 197).

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and nine others, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Central Land Tribunal and one other, Defendants Kim-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu8437 delivered on November 11, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the defendants' grounds of appeal.

Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991) provides that compensation for a land to be expropriated shall be based on the officially announced value under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and that compensation shall be based on the price assessed by taking into account the utilization plan of the land in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or the rate of land fluctuation and price inflation and other matters unrelated to the relevant area from the basic date to the determination of the basic date, and Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act provides that in calculating the price of the land to be expropriated, compensation shall be made in a balance between the price of the land and the officially announced value of the reference land in question and the officially announced value of the reference land in question and Article 29(5) of the former Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989; 297.

In addition, the term "normal price of similar land" means the price formed in ordinary transactions with respect to land identical or similar to land subject to expropriation, such as natural and social conditions, such as restrictions on land category classification and land use under the laws and regulations, which are located in the vicinity of land subject to expropriation, not including development gains, and is not formed in speculative transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2397, Feb. 25, 1992; 92Nu6921, Feb. 9, 193; 92Nu6921, Feb. 9, 199). Thus, in assessing the price for calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land by an appraisal business entity or appraiser, even if the price is not formed in speculative transactions, it can not be deemed that the price is identical or wrong if the price is not included in the speculative transaction, or is not the normal price or the compensation price of the neighboring land under the urban planning (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Nu1697, Feb. 197, 197.).

The court below acknowledged the specific use area, location, land category, shape, environment, and utilization of the land to be expropriated in this case, the land price fluctuation rate of the reference land from the basic date to the expropriation ruling, the regional factors of the reference land and the difference in individual factors, and the normal transaction price and compensation price of neighboring similar land, based on the officially announced land price of the reference land. In light of relevant evidence and records, and the aforementioned factors affecting the objective value of the land to be expropriated in this case, the court below determined the compensation amount of the land to be expropriated in this case as 1.5 times the officially announced land price. In light of the above legal principles, the above determination of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law, such as the theory of the court below's judgment, and the party members' judgment regarding the land to be expropriated in this case is related to the case different from this case, and thus it cannot be justified to invoke this case.

We cannot accept the issue because it is merely against the lower judgment that calculated the amount of compensation for losses for the land to be expropriated in this case according to the result of the Nonparty’s appraisal without reasonable grounds.

Therefore, all appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)