[1] The meaning of "site for unauthorized Building, etc." under Article 6 (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Loss, and the method of assessing illegal change of form and quality due to the enforcement of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act amended on January 7,

[2] The case holding that where the passage, open site, parking lot, etc. leading to an unauthorized building cannot be deemed as the site for the unauthorized building, and the land that has changed the form and quality is deemed as being incorporated into the housing site development project execution district, and the approval and public notice of the housing site development plan is made after the enforcement of Article 6 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation of Loss Act amended on January 7, 1995, the land should be evaluated as the current

[1] Article 6 (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 3, Jan. 7, 1995) refers to the land within the scope necessary for the use and profit-making of an unauthorized building, etc. and the land within the extent indivisible according to the use of an unauthorized building, etc. taking into account all the circumstances such as the use and size of the building without permission and the actual situation of the use. On the other hand, after the enforcement of Article 6 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act as amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 3, Jan. 7, 1995, it is an exception to the principle of appraisal based on the actual situation of use at the time of price after the implementation of Article 6 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, regardless of whether the time of alteration of the form and quality is before or after the enforcement of Article 6 (6) of the same Act. However, the actual situation of use after the alteration of the form and quality shall be evaluated.

[2] The case holding that the passage leading to an unauthorized building is not a site for an unauthorized building, but a site for a plastic house, a tent, a plastic house, a tent, a container and material storage yard, a parking lot, etc., and the approval and public notice of a housing site development plan, which is considered as the time of incorporation into a housing site development project execution zone, should be presented before or after the implementation of Article 6 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation and Compensation of Loss Act as amended on January 7, 1995, and that the land should be evaluated as a situation of use at the time

[1] Article 2-10(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 6(6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, and Article 6(4) of the Addenda of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, / [2] Article 2-10(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7121 decided Feb. 8, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 696)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu1265 delivered on September 20, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 6 (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 3, Jan. 7, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation Act") means land within the scope necessary for the use and profit-making of an unauthorized building, etc., and land within the scope necessary for the use and profit-making of an unauthorized building, etc. taking into account all the actual conditions such as the use and size of the building without permission, etc., and land within the scope necessary for the use and profit-making of the building without permission. On the other hand, an exception to the evaluation principle based on the actual use status at the time of the price change after the enforcement of Article 6 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation Act as amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 3, Jan. 7, 1995, the change of the form and quality of the land at the time of the price change shall be evaluated by considering the actual use status at the time of the land at 20.

The court below, after compiling his adopted evidence, found facts as stated in its decision, and rejected the provision on the land in its holding (hereinafter referred to as "land in this case") as a site for an unauthorized building under Article 6 (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Construction of Unauthorized Building which was constructed before January 24, 1989 and existed at the time of the expropriation decision, the land cannot be deemed as a site for an unauthorized building which has been used indivisiblely according to the purpose of use of the unauthorized building, and it shall not be deemed as a site for an unauthorized building. On the other hand, the court below rejected the Plaintiff's actual provision on the land in this case's land use ratio or building-to-land use ratio as the land under Article 6 (6) of the amended Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Construction of Housing, which was based on the approval and public notice of the housing site development plan to be incorporated into the housing site development project execution zone, and thus, rejected the Plaintiff's actual land use ratio or land use ratio as the land in this case's.

In comparison with the evidence of the record, the fact finding by the court below is just and there is no error of law as to the finding of facts that it did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or violated the rules of evidence, and in light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the above legal principles based on the facts, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the building-to-land ratio under the Building Act, the professional experience rules on the appraisal of sites for unauthorized buildings, and the site for unauthorized buildings under Article 6 (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the

We cannot accept the arguments in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)