(a) Where the land is expropriated within the area where the standard land prices are publicly notified, the method of calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation;

(b)ex officio hearings in administrative litigation;

A. In full view of Article 29(1), (3), and (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where land is expropriated, the standard land subject to compensation refers to the standard land price publicly notified for the same reference land among a large number of reference land selected pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, among a group of reference land that is ordinarily recognized as similar to the situation of the use of land, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions. As such, where the compensation amount is calculated on the basis of the standard land price publicly notified pursuant to Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, among a group of reference land selected among a group of lands where the target land is to be expropriated, the standard land price publicly notified for such reference land should be the standard land price publicly notified for such reference land.

(b)in administrative litigation, the court, if it considers it necessary, may determine ex officio on the basis of the facts shown in a single record even with respect to the facts for which there is no clear assertion of the parties.

A. Article 29(1), Article 29(3), and Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory; Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu294 Delivered on January 20, 1987

Plaintiff

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu899 delivered on February 26, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Comprehensively taking account of Article 29(1), (3), and (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when land is expropriated, the standard land subject to compensation should be deemed to mean the standard land price publicly notified for the same reference land among a large number of reference land selected pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, among a group of reference land that is ordinarily recognized as similar to the current utilization of the land or the surrounding environment and other natural, social, and social conditions. Therefore, in cases where the land subject to expropriation is located in an area where the standard land price is publicly notified, and the compensation amount is calculated based on the standard land price publicly notified pursuant to Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, among a group of reference land designated among a group of reference land to which the land subject to expropriation belongs, the standard land price publicly notified for the reference land

In the above purport, the court below is just in holding that the appraisal by ○○ Land Appraisal Co-office, which forms the basis for calculating the amount of compensation in the instant objection disposition, is unlawful in that the standard land price belonging to a group of land that includes the instant land, and the land category and grade of this case fall under any one of the standard land prices, and the standard land price is not disclosed too much, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, such as

2. In an administrative litigation, if the court deems it necessary, it may determine ex officio on the basis of the facts shown in a single record even with respect to the facts without a clear assertion of the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu294 delivered on January 20, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the appraisal by the △△ Land Appraisal Joint Office, which is the basis for calculating the amount of compensation in the instant objection, is unlawful in that there is no increase in wholesale prices and no consideration for the normal market price of neighboring land. In light of the above judgment of the court below and the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of judgment that the court may decide ex officio in the administrative litigation, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)