[1] Whether the designation of a local industrial development promotion district with respect to land to be expropriated is limited to public law, which is conducted for the purpose of directly executing the pertinent public project (affirmative)

[2] Where it is permitted to raise the officially announced price of the standard land which serves as the basis for the appraisal of the price of the land to be expropriated, and the method of reflection

[3] The case holding that the court below's measures are improper in calculating the price of the land to be expropriated under the premise that the transaction case between the non-party constitutes a normal transaction of similar neighboring land and the transaction price of the transaction case was formed at a price that does not include development gains from the development project in question (2.3 times the revised rate)

[1] The designation of a local industrial development promotion district with respect to the pertinent land subject to expropriation is a series of measures to implement a project, and the designation of a specific use district for an industrial area shall be deemed to have been made for the purpose of directly executing the relevant industrial complex development project. Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, in assessing the relevant land price at the time of the decision of expropriation, it shall be evaluated according to the situation before there is no such restriction without considering each of the above designation.

[2] In assessing the price of the land to be expropriated, only the land price inflation rate of the officially announced land price of the reference land which serves as the basis thereof is lower than the land price inflation rate of neighboring land cannot be considered as the basis for consideration. In other words, in a case where it is deemed that the officially announced land price per se is lower than the pertinent project due to the designation of the price of the land to be expropriated as the project zone, the land price per se shall be considered only when there is a sufficient proof to deem that the land price per se has not increased, even though the land price per se would have not been designated as the project zone, due to the designation of the price of the land to be expropriated as the project zone. The amended rate shall not be different from the land price inflation rate of neighboring land and the fluctuation rate of the officially announced land price per se, but shall also reflect only the natural land price

[3] The case reversing the court below's decision on the ground that in calculating the price of the pertinent land to be expropriated based on the premise that the transaction case between the non-party constitutes a normal transaction of similar neighboring land and the transaction price of such transaction case was formed at a price that does not include development gains from the pertinent development project, the sale price of the pertinent land to be expropriated cannot be viewed as a reasonable evaluation method (2.3 times the revised rate)

[1] Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of December 31, 1991); Article 6 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act / [2] Article 6 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act / [3] Article 6 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16300 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2791) and Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16300 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2791), Supreme Court Decision 96Da22594 delivered on September 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3130)

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorneys Yoon Il-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Lincho Regional Industrial Complex Management Corporation (Attorney Song Man-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13886 delivered on April 11, 1995

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu11742 delivered on September 20, 1996

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning concerning the current status of the land subject to expropriation of this case, the reason why the industrial complex development project of this case was implemented, and the designation of a local industrial complex development promotion district concerning the land subject to expropriation of this case is a series of measures to implement the project, and the designation of a special-purpose area to an industrial area shall be deemed to have been conducted directly for the purpose of the implementation of the industrial complex development project of this case, and, therefore, the designation of a special-purpose area to an industrial area shall be deemed to have been conducted directly for the purpose of the implementation of the industrial complex development project of this case, unless there are special circumstances, in assessing the land price of this case at the time of the decision of expropriation of this case without considering the above designation. Such judgment of the court below is legitimate in accordance with the judgment of remand of party members, and it shall not

The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) based on the appraisal result of Nonparty 1’s appraiser 1 and fact-finding results on July 14, 1994; (b) based on the land category and actual use status of six parcels of land subject to expropriation; (c) the land price rate of May 14, 1992 as of January 1, 1992 as of the above base date; (d) the land price rate of up to May 14, 1992 as of the above base date; (b) the designation of the relevant regional industrial development promotion district and its corresponding designation as an industrial area; and (c) the price of the land subject to expropriation as of April 23, 1993, based on the average of 60 square meters of the land at the time of sale and purchase at the same time; and (d) the price of the land at 600 square meters of the land at the time of sale and purchase at the same time as the above average of 3,484 square meters of the land at the above base price.

However, in assessing the price of the land to be expropriated, solely on the ground that the land price inflation rate of the officially announced land price of the reference land, which serves as the basis thereof is lower than the land price inflation rate of neighboring land, cannot be considered as the basis for consideration. In other words, in a case where the officially announced land price itself is deemed to have been objectively assessed due to the relevant project, the land price of the reference land, which is the basis thereof, shall be considered only when there is sufficient proof to deem that the land price has not increased even if the land price was not designated as the project district due to the dynamic relation, due to the designation of the price of the land to be expropriated as the project district. The amended rate shall also be reflected not in the difference between the land price inflation rate of neighboring land and the land price fluctuation rate of neighboring land, but only the natural land price inflation rate excluding the development gains among them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu1910, Aug. 27, 1993; 9Nu1630, Sept. 10, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, even though the decline rate of land price in the area in the Haan-gun is larger than that in the neighboring area, it cannot be concluded that the above transaction cases cited by the plaintiffs or the judgment of the court below after remand were not included in development gains. Rather, it cannot be ruled out that the above transaction cases constitute a normal transaction in neighboring similar land, and that the above transaction cases constitute a sale price of the above land after the elapse of 11 months from the date of the decision of expropriation of this case, and that the transaction was conducted immediately adjacent to the above industrial area and the development gains from the industrial complex development project of this case were formed at the price including the development gains from the industrial complex of this case. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the above transaction cases were identical or similar to the land to the land to be expropriated of this case, as compared with the land to the land to be expropriated of this case, the natural land price increase rate of land price in the vicinity of Haan-gun constitutes a normal transaction in neighboring land and the sale price in this case was formed at a price not included in the development project of this case.

Therefore, the above measures of the court below are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appraisal of compensation for land subject to expropriation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)