The case holding that it is lawful in the appraisal of adjudication that the amount of compensation for losses is calculated on the ground that the owner of farmland located in the planned area for public use and the planned area for housing site development had obtained permission for development activities by lending another person's name and the permission was revoked, and the land should be deemed to be changed to the form and quality without obtaining permission.

The case holding that applying Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, which is a provision on the calculation of legitimate compensation, the calculation of compensation for losses is lawful, on the ground that the appraisal of judgment is based on the land as its current use as at the time of changing the form and quality of the land, and as at the time of changing the form and quality of the land, in case where the owner of the land located in the planned area for public use, obtained permission for development activities by means of fraud, and such permission was revoked.

Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects

Plaintiff (Law Firm Ho, Attorneys Sung Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Gyeong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 29, 2010

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,910,850 won with 5% interest per annum from April 30, 2010 to May 20, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 97% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 189,196,050 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the application for extension of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Approval and public notification of the project;

·Housing site development projects (Yongju City Stack-gu <5j.>

- Notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 2007-100 on March 30, 2007

(b) Project operator: Defendant;

(c) Adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on December 18, 2008;

· Commencement date of expropriation: February 10, 2009

· Object of accommodation: 977m20m2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Yangju-si (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”).

·Compensation for losses: 245,959,750 won

· An appraisal corporation: (ju) but (ju) an appraisal corporation;

(d) Ruling by the Central Land Tribunal on May 21, 2009;

·Compensation for losses: 249,281,550 won

- An appraisal corporation: (main) An appraisal corporation, a (main) appraisal corporation, and a (main) appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "adjudication appraisal").

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The appraisal of the land of this case shall be conducted at an appropriate price according to the actual situation. The appraisal of the land of this case shall be conducted at a reasonable price according to the appraisal request made by the appraiser non-party 1 as a result of the appraisal request made by the appraiser non-party 1 and the appraisal of the supplementary appraisal result, which shall be 438,477,600 won (the difference between 249,281,550 won and 249,281,550 won as compensation for losses), 361,50 won (the difference between 11,719,950 won and 25,192,40 won (the above difference between 5,910,850 won and 249,719,950 won) assessed as "ware site" in the first preliminary appraisal, and 25,192,400 won (the above difference between 5,910,850 won) assessed as "res

B. Determination on the land use status of this case

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged according to the respective statements (including each number) in the evidence Nos. 2 to 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings:

A) On July 30, 2004, the procedures for hearing the opinions of the residents for the designation of the housing site development district were carried out in relation to the instant housing site development project. On September 6, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained from the Yangju City Mayor the permission for the development of a warehouse site (Permission No. 2004-750) with respect to 1,953 square meters among 2,251 square meters in Yangju-dong, Yangju-dong (hereinafter “the land before division”) prior to the division owned by the Plaintiff.

B) Of the land that received the above permission on October 7, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application for the change of name on the ground of the exchange of land, and the Plaintiff’s Dong Nonparty 2 obtained the permission for change of name of each permitted person (the permission number No. 2004-750-1 of the permission number No. 2004-969-1 of the permission number No. 2004-969-1 of the permission number No. 2004, Nov. 16, 2004, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 obtained the permission for change of name (the permission number No. 2004-969-2, No. 2004-7502 of the land in this case) as to the remaining 976m2 (the permission number No. 2004-969-2, No. 2004-7502 of the land in this case).

C) On November 4, 2004, the Plaintiff divided the instant land into the land before subdivision, and completed a completion inspection on December 1, 2004 on the development activities on the said land (the creation of a site for neighborhood living facilities). On January 5, 2005, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 changed the land category into the land for factory in the field. Meanwhile, from October 23, 2004 to December 23, 2004, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 constructed each prefabricated-type building (194.04 square meters on each general steel structure light panel, roof 2 green living facilities on each general steel structure) from October 2004 to each prefabricated-type building (194.04 square meters on December 23, 2004).

D) On February 14, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in an additional development activity under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to farmland located within the district subject to the housing site development plan for the purpose of site creation for the Plaintiff’s neighborhood living facilities (limited area: 1,000m2) in the name of the Plaintiff, and became an area subject to public accommodation, and applied for permission to engage in an additional development activity with respect to farmland owned by the Plaintiff, which was located within the district subject to the housing site development plan for Yangju-si and became an area subject to public accommodation. For the purpose of increasing compensation for land expropriation, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine for development activity on November 13, 2004 by dividing the land below the limited area where the installation of neighborhood living facilities, such as housing, etc., had no intent to engage in development activities, and completed development activities with the permission for formal diversion of farmland and its land category changed to the site. The Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of 207m2,000,000 won under the name of Nonparty 27.

E) On May 7, 2007, the Yangju Mayor revoked permission to engage in development activities (permission number No. 2004-750-2) under Nonparty 2 on the instant land, and the adjudication and appraisal on the status of the instant land, the development permission of which was revoked, considered the current status of the instant land, which is the current status prior to the development activities, as the “indem

2) Determination

A) Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects provides that land, the form and quality of which must be changed without obtaining permission or filing a report pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “illegal land changing its form and quality”), shall be appraised by considering the current status at the time the land is changed, and the permission for the development of the land in this case was cancelled by means of deception borrowing Nonparty 2, such as the above acknowledged facts. As such, it cannot be ruled out that Article 24 of the above Enforcement Rule is applied to a person who obtained permission and the Plaintiff, the actor, as the ground for the plaintiff’s assertion, and the land in this case is a land whose form and quality were changed without obtaining permission, and thus, the land in this case shall be deemed to be a land whose form and quality were changed without obtaining permission. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that there is any illegality in calculating compensation for losses in the calculation of

B) The plaintiff asserts that the cancellation of permission for development activities, which is a beneficial administrative act, has future effects, that the land in this case cannot be deemed as a land changing form and quality, and should be evaluated as a land for factory site. However, in principle, revocation of administrative act has retroactive effect, and where permission, etc. is granted by a deceptive method, the principle of trust concerning administrative act cannot be invoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu700, Jun. 11, 1985; 2003Du4669, May 25, 2006). The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the Plaintiff at least obtained permission for the development of a warehouse site in the name of Nonparty 2 before obtaining permission for the development of the instant land in the name of Nonparty 2, and therefore, the current use at the time of changing the form and quality of the instant land should be deemed a warehouse site. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the development act itself appears to have been conducted after October 2004, which was the time when permission for the development was obtained due to the creation of a site for a green living (manufacturing facility) site near the development purpose, and thus, the actual use of the land is not deemed a warehouse site. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part has no merit

C. Determination on justifiable compensation

According to the statement Nos. 3-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, and the result of the court’s entrustment to the appraiser Nonparty 1 of this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal”), the adjudication appraisal and the court appraisal have the same opinion in terms of the selection of comparative standards and other factors, and there is a difference in the amount of compensation assessment in a somewhat different relationship with each other, and there is no evidence to deem that there is an unlawful reason in each evaluation method. Thus, this court has adopted the court appraisal to calculate compensation.

According to the court's appraisal, the reasonable compensation for the land of this case (in response) is KRW 255,192,40, which proposed the utilization status as at the time of changing the form and quality, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5,910,850, which is 5,910,850, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the application for extending the claim of this case, to the extent and existence of the defendant's obligation of performance, as the plaintiff seeks, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 30, 2010 until May 20, 2010, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Yoon Jong-gu (Presiding Judge)