[1] Since approval of a site for public facilities under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory does not restrict the use of land by the landowner, it cannot be viewed as a public law restriction under the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss.

[2] Whether the normal transaction practices or compensation precedents of neighboring similar land can be considered in calculating the fair compensation amount for the land to be expropriated (affirmative with qualification)

[1] The approval of the site for public facilities granted by the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 20 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, Infrastructure and Transport (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002) by the Korea-affiliated Railroad Construction Headquarters does not limit the use of land to the land owner. Thus, it does not fall under public law restrictions under Article 6 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation of Land, etc. (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works, Act No. 344 of Dec. 31, 2002). It does not interfere with the evaluation of the land owner's intention to purchase the

[2] In full view of the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations regarding the calculation of the amount of land expropriation compensation, such as Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Act No. 6656, Feb. 4, 2002; Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor), in cases of calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, it does not necessarily need to be taken into account by investigating the transaction examples or the examples of compensation in neighboring similar land. However, it is only possible to take into account only if there is a transaction example

[1] Article 46 of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002), Article 20 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, etc. (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 66555 of Feb. 4, 2002), Articles 4 and 5 of the former Act on the Promotion of Construction of Public Railroad (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002), Article 6 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for Land, etc. (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, Act No. 6556 of Feb. 4, 200), Article 231 of the former Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8562 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 308) 92Nu6921 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 991), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1763 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 100Du192979 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 21952, 2151 delivered on January 25, 200), Supreme Court Decision 200Du2979 delivered on April 29, 200, Supreme Court Decision 209Du1979 delivered on April 27, 1997 (Gong194, 2159)

Suwon Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cha Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu10153 decided May 8, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment after compiling the selected evidence, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the actual use of the land in this case should be designated as the standard land on the premise that the land in this case is being used as the land for industrial use or the land for factory, and that the land in this case was located in the quasi-agricultural and forestry area that is the same specific use area as the land in this case, and that the standard land for the appraisal of this case is also located in the quasi-agricultural and forestry area that is the same specific use area as the land in this case, and its surrounding environment, traffic condition, and current use are similar to the land in this case.

Examining relevant evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the approval of the site for public facilities obtained by the National Land Management and Utilization Act of May 21, 1994 from the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 20 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land Planning and Utilization (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 6655 of February 4, 2002) does not merely restrict the use, etc. of the Plaintiff’s land, and thus, it does not fall under the public law limitation under Article 6(4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation and Compensation of Public Works, etc. (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation and Utilization of Land, etc. for Public Works, Ordinance No. 344 of December 31, 2002). Thus, the intention to purchase the land of this case and the plan to extend the factory on the land of

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the appraisal of the objection of this case, which assessed the present condition of the land of this case according to the objective utilization situation, without considering the subjective circumstances asserted by the plaintiff, such as the intention to purchase the land of this case or the plan to use it as the land for the future, is correct as a result, and it cannot be said that there is an error of violation of the law

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

In full view of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes regarding the calculation of the amount of compensation for land expropriation, such as Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act, when calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, it does not necessarily need to be taken into account by investigating the transaction examples or the compensation examples of neighboring similar land. However, it is only possible to take into account only if the transaction examples or the compensation examples of neighboring similar land and the price thereof is recognized to have an impact on the reasonable assessment of compensation amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu6921, Feb. 9, 1993; 200Du10106, Mar. 29, 2002).

For reasons indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transaction cases of Osan-si 615-5 and 615-3 lots, etc. should be taken into account, is justifiable in accordance with such legal principles. There is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to similar transaction cases or by mismisunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence

4. As to the fifth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the appraisal of this case on August 9, 1996, on the basis of the officially announced price of reference land publicly announced on January 1, 1996, which was the most adjacent to the date of the above public notice, as stipulated in Articles 4 and 5 of the former Public Railroad Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6656, Feb. 4, 2002).

In light of the relevant statutes and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to property rights guarantee principles, the right to pursue happiness, the right to equality, the principle of excessive prohibition, and the principle of good faith, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)