[1] The meaning of "normal market price of neighboring similar land" can be considered in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, and the meaning of "normal market price of neighboring similar land"

[2] The case holding that compensation for neighboring land which was incorporated into a road zone for construction and packing of the pertinent public project cannot be considered as compensation example in calculating the amount of compensation for the land subject to expropriation

[3] The case holding that land expropriation disposition based on illegal land appraisal conducted by an appraisal corporation which reflects the appraisal of land without entirely reflecting individual factors such as land price fluctuation rate, regional factors, street conditions, access conditions, etc. in the land price formation factors due to the development of a lot around the land subject to expropriation, without entirely reflecting such factors as land price calculation factors

[1] In full view of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes regarding the calculation of compensation for losses in land expropriation, such as Article 46(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal Act, Article 17(1) and (6) of the Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and Article 17(1) of the Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and Article 17(6) of the Rules on Appraisal and Appraisal of Land, etc., where the case of normal transaction of neighboring similar land is not to be taken into account in calculation of the compensation amount of land, but the case where there is a case where the neighboring similar land was transacted or compensated and the price thereof is proved to have an impact on the adequate assessment of compensation amount, and the "normal transaction price of neighboring similar land" here means the price at which the land is located adjacent to the land subject to expropriation, and the natural and social conditions, such as the land category, grade, land register, land

[2] The case holding that compensation for neighboring land, which was incorporated into a road zone for construction and packing of the pertinent public project, cannot be considered as compensation example in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated

[3] The case holding that land expropriation disposition based on illegal land appraisal conducted by an appraisal corporation which reflects the appraisal of land without entirely reflecting individual factors such as land price fluctuation rate, regional factors, street conditions, and access conditions, etc. in the land price formation factors due to the development of a lot around the land subject to expropriation, without entirely reflecting such factors as land price calculation factors, is unlawful

[1] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9, 10, and 22 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 17 of the Regulations on Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. / [2] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9, 10, and 22 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 17 of the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment of Lands, etc. / [3] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9, 10, and 22 of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6921 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3308), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6921 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 993Sang, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1763 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1023), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19521 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2151 delivered on January 25, 1994); Supreme Court Decision 93Nu11524 delivered on September 29, 197 (Gong1994, 838 delivered on April 196, 197)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Park Jung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu23 delivered on October 19, 2001

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

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the first instance court, it is hard to find out that the above 10 square meters of 198.2. 5 square meters of 197 were 60 square meters of 20,000,000,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000,000,000 7,000,000,000,000 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

2. Judgment of party members

A. As to the consideration of transaction prices of neighboring similar land

In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 17(1) and (6) of the Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes concerning calculation of compensation for land expropriation, the case of normal transaction of neighboring similar land does not necessarily need to be taken into account in calculating a fair compensation amount of land to be expropriated, but where there are cases where neighboring similar land has been traded or compensated and the price thereof is proved to have an impact on a reasonable assessment of compensation amount as normal, it can be taken into account. The "normal transaction price of neighboring similar land" here means the price at which the land is located in the neighboring area of the land to be expropriated, and the natural and social conditions, such as the land category, grade, land register, form, use status, and statutory restrictions, are identical or similar to the land to be expropriated, and the development gains are not included, and it refers to the price which is not formed in speculative transactions (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu17111, January 23,

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is reasonable that the court below's decision that the sale case claimed by the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as a normal sale case of similar similar land which is to be considered in calculating the compensation amount for losses of the land of this case as stated in its reasoning is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of the legal principles on land compensation or incomplete reasoning as otherwise alleged in the

The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

B. As to the consideration of the compensation preference

As seen earlier, in calculating a reasonable amount of compensation for the land subject to expropriation, there are cases where neighboring similar land was transacted or has been compensated, and where it is proved that its price might have an impact on an adequate amount of compensation, it may be considered. However, if the compensation is caused by the pertinent public project, the compensation amount shall not be considered as an example of compensation. However, as seen earlier, the compensation for the above ( Address 2 omitted) land claimed by the Plaintiff as an example of compensation which should be considered in the determination of the amount of compensation for the pertinent land was incorporated into the road zone for construction and packing of the instant land, and thus, the compensation for the said land cannot be considered as a precedent in calculating the amount of compensation for the instant land.

The reasoning of the court below on this part is somewhat different, and the result is the same, so the judgment of the court below on this part is just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

We cannot accept the argument in the grounds of appeal as to this point.

C. As to the correction of the price formation factors of the instant land

According to the records, the land at issue was located in 0.0 square meters in the above 100 square meters in the 19. The land at issue was located in 0.0 square meters in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 2nd place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 2nd place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 2nd place in the 2nd place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 2nd place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 2nd place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 2nd place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 1st place in the 2nd place in the 1st place in the 1st place. The 2nd place in the 9th place in the 1st place in the 9.

Therefore, the appraisal corporation which conducted the appraisal based on the appraisal of the instant land in this case should revise the land price increase in neighboring land due to such development itself as other factors, or reflect it in any form such as future trends and other conditions in the appraisal of individual factors. However, without entirely reflecting the circumstance of the instant peculiar nature as the land price assessment factor, only individual factors such as the land price fluctuation rate, regional factors, street conditions, and access conditions should be considered as the land price fluctuation rate, and the instant objection ruling based on such unlawful appraisal is also unlawful. The lower court determined that the assessed amount based on the illegal land appraisal was the reasonable assessed amount of compensation. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation principle of compensation for losses for the land, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)