Where the urban planning decision on the construction of a road has been publicly announced before the relevant public project is implemented, the method of calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the neighboring land not included in the scheduled part for inclusion into the road.

In a case where the urban planning decision on the construction of a road has already been publicly announced before the execution of the relevant public project, and the public law limit has already been imposed on the land subject to expropriation falls under the so-called individual planning limit that requires the implementation of a specific project in order to achieve the objectives thereof. In calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of the land, the above restriction in the public law is not only to directly implement the relevant public project, but also to be incorporated into a public project for purposes other than originally intended projects, but also to be evaluated in the state where the above land is not subject to such restriction. The purpose of this study is to prevent the landowner from unfairly suffering from disadvantage due to low price compensation due to the restriction in the public law, and further to assess the amount of compensation for the neighboring land that is not the part incorporated into a road under the urban planning, which is not the part incorporated into a road under the urban planning, the purport of this study is to exclude the land owner from the land price concerned by considering the situation equivalent to the increase in the land price.

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 6 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 493 of Oct. 28, 1991)

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11797 decided Jul. 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1259) 91Nu4324 decided Mar. 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1317) 93Nu12527 decided Oct. 12, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3102)

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and 8 others

Central Land Tribunal and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu23655 delivered on February 5, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In a case where the urban planning decision on the construction of a road has already been announced before the execution of the public project, and the restriction on the use thereof has already been imposed on the land subject to expropriation, such restriction under the public law constitutes the so-called individual planning restriction that requires the implementation of the project to achieve its objectives. Thus, in calculating the amount of compensation for the expropriation of the land, the restriction under the public law as above is not only for the purpose of the implementation of the public project, but also for the case where the land is incorporated into a public project for any purpose other than the original purpose of the public project, it shall be evaluated in the state where such restriction is not imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1797, Jul. 11, 1989; 91Nu4324, Mar. 13, 1992). The purport of this restriction is to prevent the land owner from causing any disadvantage to the land owner due to the increase in the price of the land resulting from the public project in the public law as a result of the evaluation of the land subject to expropriation.

According to the records, in assessing the value of the land to be expropriated in this case by the appraiser of the court below, since the decision to establish a road, which is an urban planning facility, has already been publicly announced as to each part of the land before the designation and public notice of the planned area of housing site development and the approval of the development plan, the court below, on the ground that the part contrary to the road planning line, is assessed on the basis of the land price if it is irrelevant to the road planning line by failing to consider urban planning, and on the premise that the part adjacent to the road planning line is assessed in consideration of urban planning, and on the basis that the part adjacent to the road planning line is assessed on the basis of the land to be expropriated in this case by comparing the horizontal conditions of the individual factors between the land to be expropriated in this case and each reference land to the road, shall be compared with 100/100 with the part to be incorporated in the road, and on the other hand, 130/100 with respect to the former, the reasonable compensation amount in this case shall be calculated on the basis of this basis.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

In short, the argument that the width of the road installed on the land subject to expropriation after the implementation of the housing site development project, which is the purpose of the expropriation project of this case, has increased from 35 to 50 meters as set forth in the previous urban planning, or that the area to be incorporated on the road has increased due to the extension of the road area to be incorporated on the land subject to expropriation, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal, as it has raised a new claim on the new facts that was not previously discussed at the original court. In addition, even if the road is established on the land subject to expropriation due to the implementation of the housing site development project of this case, such change in the land conditions due to the construction of the road in the project zone after the implementation of the housing site development project of this case, is not only a result of the implementation of the housing site development project of this case, and

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)