[1] Evaluation of land in a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship and the principle of evaluation by lot

[2] The time of evaluation of the land to be expropriated (=the date of adjudication of expropriation) and whether the development gains arising from the plan of the expropriation project should be excluded and assessed (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below was unlawful in assessing that the appraisal by the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below is more likely to develop more than the standard land in the existing housing zone than the standard land in the existing housing zone, while not only assessed on the basis of the expropriation period, but also on the basis of the appraisal by the individual factors

[4] Whether the normal transaction price, etc. of neighboring similar land should be taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation for land expropriation (affirmative with qualification)

[1] According to Article 15, etc. of the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment, in assessing land to be expropriated, it shall be assessed by parcel unless there are any special circumstances. Thus, the registration of co-ownership on each specific part is in mutual title trust relationship by purchasing specific parts of each parcel and completing the registration of co-ownership for convenience, and even if so-called co-ownership is co-owned land, it shall be judged based on the whole land of one parcel as well as general co-owned land, and the compensation amount for each co-owner shall be determined in proportion to co-ownership in proportion to co-ownership.

[2] In full view of the provisions of Article 46(1), Article 46(2)1, Article 4(3) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(2)1 and (3) of the Special Act on Public Compensation for Loss, Article 6(8) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Public Compensation for Loss of Loss, Article 7(1) of the Guidelines for Compensation Evaluation (Establishment of the Korea Association for Appraisal and Assessment Business) of the Land Expropriation Act, the evaluation of the land to be expropriated shall be based on the date of the adjudication of expropriation rather than on the date of the adjudication

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the appraisal of the procedure for the preservation of evidence of the court below was not only assessed on the basis of the expropriation period, not on the date of the pertinent expropriation ruling, but also on the basis of the individual factor's character booms, and it is not unlawful that the pertinent land located in the pertinent expropriation project zone is more likely to develop in the future than the standard land located in the existing housing zone,

[4] In determining the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, the normal transaction price or compensation example of the neighboring similar land is not necessarily to be taken into account, but only if it is recognized that the normal transaction price or compensation example of the neighboring similar land exists and it can affect the assessment of the reasonable amount of compensation.

[1] Article 45 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 103 of the Civil Act, Article 15 of the Regulations on the Appraisal / [2] Article 46(1), Article 46(2)1, Article 4(3) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(2)1, Article 4(3) of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 6(8) of the Enforcement Rule on the Compensation for Public Loss / [3] Article 46(1), Article 46(2)1 and (3) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 46(2)1 and (3) of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 46(2)3 of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 6(8) of the Enforcement Rule on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Loss / [4] Article 45, Article 46(1), Article 46(2)1 and (3) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(2)1 and (3) of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 6(8) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2342 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2156) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu227 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2304), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13725 delivered on November 7, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3920) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8562 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3308), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6921 delivered on February 9, 193 (Gong193, 291)

Plaintiff

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Law Firm continental, Attorneys Ba-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu26786 delivered on February 18, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the appraisal of the new and Japanese appraisal corporation, which served as the basis of the judgment of the objection of this case, was unlawful since it did not clearly state the specific reasons for expenses of goods, etc. in detail while comparing all individual factors with goods, etc., and thus, the judgment of the court below is unlawful as long as the amount of compensation is not identical to the reasonable amount of compensation. The court below determined that the appraisal of the non-party in the procedure for preserving the evidence of this case is a legitimate appraisal in compliance with the provisions of the law, such as specifying and clarifying the factors for price calculation, etc., and determined that the appraisal of the non-party in the procedure for preserving the evidence of the court below is a legitimate appraisal in accordance with the provisions of the law, and calculated the fair amount of compensation, and ordered the payment of the difference with the compensation amount of the non-party in

2. According to Article 15, etc. of the Regulations on the Appraisal and Assessment, in assessing land to be expropriated, it shall be assessed by parcel unless there are any special circumstances. Thus, in the case of assessing land to be expropriated, the registration of co-ownership on each specific part is mutually in a mutual title trust relationship by purchasing specific parts of each parcel and completing the registration of co-ownership for convenience, and even if so-called co-ownership is co-owned land, it is externally owned by the trustee. As such, the registered real estate should be assessed based on the whole land of one parcel as in general co-owned land, and the amount of compensation for each co-owner should be determined in proportion to co-ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2342, Jun. 29,

According to the records, it can be known that the Plaintiff purchased a specific portion of the land in Jung-gu, Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) and completed a co-ownership registration (37/889) while purchasing a co-ownership share on the land in Jung-gu, Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), and later divided the land before subdivision into the land in this case and the land ( Address 2 omitted) where the said specific part belongs, and then the said four parcels of land were all incorporated into the expropriation business in this case (○○ Zone 3 Housing Improvement Project). At the time of the decision of expropriation in this case, at the time of the decision of expropriation in this case, the Plaintiff’s co-ownership registration ( Address 2 omitted) on the land in this case is 122.31/240, and the co-ownership share on the remaining three parcels of land is 37/89,000 respectively). Thus, it is not possible to determine the compensation amount for the Plaintiff by calculating the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share ratio among the land in this case’s four parcels of land, and by calculating them.

3. In full view of the provisions of Article 46(1), Article 46(2)1, Article 4(3) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(2)1, and (3) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 6(8) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 7(1) of the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Compensation for Loss of Losses, the evaluation of land to be expropriated shall be based on the date of the adjudication of expropriation rather than on the date of the adjudication of expropriation, and the development gains from the planning or implementation of the relevant project shall be excluded and assessed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu27, Jul. 13, 1993; 94Nu13725, Nov. 7, 1995).

According to the records, the appraisal of the above non-party is not the date of the adjudication of expropriation of this case ( September 9, 1996) but not the time of expropriation ( October 22, 1996), since it can be known that the land in this case located in the area subject to expropriation of this case was more likely to develop in the future than the standard land located in the existing area and more than the standard land located in the area subject to expropriation of this case was assessed as 25% high, it is illegal evaluation. Thus, the court below's determination of the fair compensation amount against the plaintiff, and there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation amount. The ground of appeal No. 2 pointing this out is with merit.

4. In determining the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, the normal transaction prices or compensation precedents of similar neighboring land do not necessarily need to be taken into account, but can be taken into account only when it is recognized that there are normal transaction cases or compensation precedents of similar neighboring land and that it may affect the adequate assessment of compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6921, Feb. 9, 1993). According to the records, the appraisal by the above non-party can be found to have corrected 20% by taking into account the normal transaction prices or compensation precedents of neighboring land and other factors, without specifically stating the above circumstances. Thus, the appraisal by the above non-party was corrected by 20% by taking into account the normal transaction prices of neighboring land and compensation precedents. Nevertheless, the court below calculated the amount of compensation for the plaintiff as it is. Accordingly, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation amount. The ground of appeal No. 3 pointing this out has merit.

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)