beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 3, and Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1
A. 1) The former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “Act”).
(2) Article 70(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works delegated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 427, Jan. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Act”) provides that “The amount of compensation for land shall, in principle, be calculated by taking into account the actual conditions of use and objective conditions of use at the time of price, and the conditions of temporary use, etc. shall not be considered.”
Article 24 provides that “The land, the form and quality of which have been altered without obtaining permission or filing a report under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (hereinafter referred to as “illegal land changing its form and quality”), shall be appraised by presenting the current state at the time when the land is changed to its form and quality.” Accordingly, in principle, the amount of compensation for the land subject to expropriation shall be calculated according to the actual state of use. As such, in order to calculate the amount of compensation due to the actual state of use or the current state of use at the time of changing the form and quality on the ground that the land subject to expropriation is temporary or illegal land changing its form and quality, it shall be attested that the land subject to expropriation is the land changing form and quality of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2521, Apr. 26, 2012).