A. The meaning of the normal market price of neighboring similar land that is prescribed to be considered in determining the amount of compensation for land expropriation within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced under Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989

(b) The case holding that it is inappropriate to appraise the land subject to compensation, the transaction price of which is not considered in light of the above transaction price, since the land differs from the land subject to compensation, its size, form, use, street and lot conditions, etc., and the development gains from the housing site development project are included in the sale price;

A. 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) provides that the standard land price shall be considered in determining the amount of compensation for the expropriation of adjacent similar land in the area where the land price is publicly announced, refers to the land that belongs to the neighboring, similar areas of the land subject to compensation and is identical or similar to natural and social conditions, such as land category, land register, form, utilization status, specific-use area, public law restrictions, etc., and is also the price formed in normal transactions rather than speculation.

(b) The case holding that it is inappropriate to appraise the land subject to compensation, the transaction price of which is not considered in light of the above transaction price, since the land differs from the land subject to compensation, its size, form, use, street and lot conditions, etc., and the development gains from the housing site development project are included in the sale price;

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), Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989)

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Han Han-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Park Jong-yang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu6773 delivered on November 9, 1990

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

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the Central Land Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation for the land of this case within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced, the appraisal by the ○○○ and the △△ Land Appraisal Co., Ltd., based on the calculation of compensation amount at the time of the ruling of this case, the court below did not take into account the normal market price of the similar land because the land of 11,400 square meters before the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was transacted with 216,140 won per square meter; the appraisal by the △△△△△△ Co., Ltd., based on the appraisal rate of 00 square meters for the land of this case; the appraisal by the △△△△ Co., Ltd., Ltd., based on the appraisal rate of 1,000 square meters for the land of this case; the appraisal rate of 1,000 square meters for the land of this case calculated based on the appraisal rate of 1,000 square meters for the land of this case; and the appraisal rate of 2, the above appraisal price of the land of this case is excluded.

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), when determining the amount of compensation for the expropriation of land within the area for which the standard land price is publicly notified, the normal market price of nearby similar land should be taken into consideration. The normal market price of neighboring similar land as referred to in the above provision refers to land that belongs to the neighboring, similar, similar, adjacent, land category, form, utilization status, specific use area, restrictions on public law, etc. of the land subject to compensation, and the natural social conditions such as land category, land category, form, use status, specific use area

However, according to the records, the land of this case is a larger long-term land than 2.6 to 45 times the width and size of the land of this case against the illegal type of land. On the other hand, since the land of this case was included in the offset zone conducted by the defendant Korea Housing Corporation on April 1, 1985, the land of this case was additionally designated as the above prearranged land development zone on June 16, 1987. The defendant Korea Housing Corporation did not use the land of this case for the housing site development project of this case after acquiring the land of this case on May 23, 1986 for the housing site development project of this case and did not sell the land of this case to the above non-party company by restricting the use of the land of this case as a bus terminal site through open competitive bidding, the land of this case differs from the land of this case in size, form, street and condition of the land of this case, and the appraisal price of the above land of this case can not be determined as the sale price of the above land of this case as an inappropriate land of this case.

Since the above ○○○ and the △△△ Land Appraisal Joint Office did not take into account the transaction price as it did not take into account the transaction price in conducting an appraisal, it is an illegal evaluation. The judgment of the court below that the appraisal price of the said appraiser is the price lawfully calculated in accordance with the relevant provisions on the appraisal of the land expropriation by the Land Expropriation Act or the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, etc. is there a misunderstanding of the legal principles on calculation of the land expropriation compensation price, or violating the rules of evidence, and such errors are affected by the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)