Whether Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss exceeds the delegation scope of the parent law, or Article 6(4) of the Addenda is contrary to the principle of statutory non-payment (negative)

Article 4(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Special Cases concerning the Compensation for Public Loss (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Cases concerning the Compensation for Land Use and Loss"), and Article 2-10(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act stipulate that the amount of compensation should be calculated at a reasonable price by calculating the general usage of land without considering the general usage of land. Although a person who illegally changes the form and quality can be subject to criminal punishment for a person who changes the form and quality without permission, if a person who changes the form and quality without permission is able to be sentenced to criminal punishment, it would result in the increase in added value created by an illegal act, and thus, it would be likely that the principle of "informal Information" would be damaged if the new Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Special Cases concerning the Compensation for Land Use and Loss (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act"), which is not applied to illegally changed form and quality of land, would not violate the previous Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Improvement and Improvement of Land within the scope of 6th Amendment.

Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(2)1 and (4) of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 2-10(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, and Compensation for Loss, Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 13(2) of the Constitution, Article 13(2) of the Constitution

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Jeong full-time, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney No-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu16540 delivered on July 25, 200

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 4 (2) 1 of the Public Land Expropriation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act") which applies mutatis mutandis to the calculation of compensation amount due to the expropriation of land under Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act shall be based on the officially announced value under the Public Land Expropriation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Land Expropriation Act") with respect to the land to be acquired, but the compensation amount shall be determined at a reasonable price assessed by taking into account the use plan of the relevant land from the basic date to the date of the determination, the price fluctuation rate of the relevant land in an area where there is no change in land price due to the relevant public project, the location, shape, environment, and current use of the relevant land, etc., and Article 2-10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act shall be delegated to determine the method of appraisal of land, etc., the method of calculating the amount of compensation, and the method of calculating the amount of compensation for the acquisition of land, etc. shall be based on the objective situation at the time of the price, and Article 4 (2) of the Special Act shall not take into account the subjective value, etc.

On the other hand, Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Construction and Transportation (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 3 of Jan. 7, 1995) provides that unlike the previous provision only with respect to the evaluation of sites for unauthorized buildings, etc., land sites for unauthorized buildings, etc. or land whose form and quality were unlawfully altered shall be assessed by considering the current status at the time when an unauthorized building, etc. was constructed or when the form and quality change of land would be changed, and newly establishing a part concerning the evaluation of land illegally altered in form and quality, and Article 6(4) of the Addenda thereto provides that the previous provision shall be applied to the compensation, etc. for land illegally altered in form and quality incorporated into a public project

Although the Enforcement Decree of the Special Cases Act does not explicitly stipulate that delegation shall be made to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Ordinance with regard to the method of assessing the specific conditions of land, Article 4(2)1 of the Special Cases Act and Article 2-10(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Cases Act provide that the amount of compensation shall be calculated at a reasonable price by calculating the amount of compensation without considering the general conditions of use of land, although the land unlawfully altered form and quality can be restored by the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, and criminal punishment can be imposed against the person who changes the form and quality without permission. However, if the land is assessed as an elevated value according to the state of changing the form and quality of the land, the principle of "value" might be undermined by recognizing added value, etc. created by illegal act. Thus, it is understood that the purpose of Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Cases to exclude the portion exceeding the "reasonable price" is to prevent such unfair result by considering the situation at the time of changing the form and quality.

Therefore, Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Special Cases Concerning Special Cases Concerning the Establishment of the grounds under Article 4(2)1 of the Act, Article 2-10(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Special Cases Concerning Special Cases concerning the Establishment of a Parental Corporation, and Article 2-10(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases concerning Special Cases concerning Special Cases concerning the Establishment of an appropriate method of calculating land within the scope of the provisions stipulated therein, shall not be deemed to be a provision unfavorable to citizens without delegation of the parent law, so it shall

In addition, the application of Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land is determined at the base point of time of the evaluation. Thus, even if land has already been illegally altered and altered before the enforcement of Article 6(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land, if the said amended provision was incorporated into a public project implementation zone after the enforcement of the said amended provision, the amended provision shall apply if it was incorporated into a public project implementation zone. Paragraph 4 of the Addenda requires the application of the previous provision only to illegal changes in form and quality incorporated into a public project implementation zone at the time of the enforcement of the said amended provision. Thus, it cannot be said that it

Although the reasoning of the judgment below is partially inappropriate, it is just to conclude that Article 6 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases cannot be deemed null and void, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as

In addition, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it is not possible to apply Article 6 (6) of the amended Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases because the land of this case is planned to be incorporated into a public project execution district at the time of the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases, or because the current status of the land of this case cannot be seen as the temporary use under Article 2-10 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases. Thus, the court below is just in holding that the court below should evaluate the land of this case as "the current status of the land at the time of changing the form and quality according to the temporary use permission of farmland" as "miscellaneous land" after the expiration of the period of permission, but it is not "the answer after the expiration of the period of permission" after the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases, so long as it is incorporated into a public project execution district which is a quasi-urban district after January 7, 195.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the records, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the land cited by the plaintiffs as the compensation preference is the land incorporated into the public project execution district after the enforcement date of the amended Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land, and its evaluation condition is similar to the land of this case, and thus, the conclusion to reject the plaintiffs' assertion that the court below should consider the compensation preference of the land is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as alleged in the

3. 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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)