Where the land to be expropriated is located within the urban planning zone, the rate at which compensation is calculated.

Article 49(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989) provides that the compensation for land expropriation rate applicable to the calculation of compensation for land expropriation shall be the rate of the same land category, but if there is no same land category, the rate of the same land category shall be the rate of the similar land category. However, Article 17(4) of the Regulations on the Appraisal and Assessment established thereafter provides that the compensation for land shall be the same land category and the same land category in the area where the land to be assessed is located, but the same land category shall be the same land category and the rate of the land for use shall be the same land category, if it is deemed impossible or inappropriate to apply the rate of the land for use, and if the land to

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Jan. 21, 1991); Article 49 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (Elimination by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989); Article 17 (4) of the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment

[Judgment of the court below]

The Central Land Tribunal and one other (1) Defendants, Kim Jong- Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu8178 delivered on April 9, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the records, in order to calculate the amount of compensation for the land indicated in the attached list of the judgment below (hereinafter the land in this case), which is the land subject to expropriation in this case, the non-party of the court below's employment appraiser determined two of the reference land in Seoul, Nowon-gu (No. 1 omitted), and Dobong-gu (No. 2 omitted), Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "No. 14") as the reference land for the land in this case, and determined two of the reference land in this case and the land A1 of the reference land in this case. The land in this case is convenient for the use of living convenience facilities as a set-off railroad station and a foundation for the offset zone, which is the center of the offset zone, and formed a housing zone at the south of the land in this case, and the regional factors are more than about 15 percent higher than the above reference land. The above evaluation method of the appraiser in this case's above is without merit, and there is no reasonable ground to conclude that the land development gains in this case's land development project under Article 46 (2) of this case.

(2) Even if the land category on the public register of the land to be expropriated is temporarily used due to restrictions on the land category or related laws, it is merely temporary use status. According to the records, it can be recognized that the land of this case, the land category on the public register, is placed in the situation where it can not be used for its original purpose, such as new construction of a building, by being designated as an execution area of the housing site development project, and it can be recognized that the land of this case, which is the land category on the public register, could not be used for the original purpose, such as new construction of a building, could have been restored to

(3) Article 49(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that the compensation for land expropriation shall be applied at the rate of the same land category, but when there is no same land category, it shall be the rate of the similar land category. However, Article 17(4) of the Regulations on the Appraisal and Assessment, enacted on December 21, 1989 by the Ordinance No. 460 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on December 21, 1989, shall be the same land category in the area where the land to be assessed is located, and the same land category shall be the same land category, and the same land category shall be the same or the same land classification shall be applied to the case where it is deemed impossible or inappropriate to apply the rate of the land price for use, and if the land to be expropriated

Therefore, in calculating the amount of compensation for the land of this case located in a green area as an urban planning zone, it is reasonable assessment method to apply the fluctuation rate of green area land price without applying the fluctuation rate of land category to the land category of this case, and it is also without merit.

(4) Otherwise, unless the above appraiser did not err in selecting A1 and A4 of the reference land as the reference land for the instant land as seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the above selection of the reference land is inappropriate on the sole basis of this fact, even though there is a little difference in the appraised amount calculated by taking into account local factors, individual factors, rate of land fluctuation, and other factors. There is no reason to see this.

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-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)