The meaning of the reference land of the same category as the land to be expropriated in the area where the reference land price is publicly notified;

Where land is expropriated within an area where the standard land price is publicly announced by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the amount of compensation for losses shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price of the same kind as the land to be expropriated among the reference land classified into five categories as above within the area subject to the selection of the reference land in question and the reference land price of the reference land, the category of which is the same. In such cases, "the land to be expropriated and the reference land whose category is the same" refers to the reference land of the same category, regardless of the category of the relevant public injury such as land cadastre

Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 48 (2) of the Enforcement Decree

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu415 Decided January 24, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu393 Decided June 23, 1987

Plaintiff 1 and 1 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

The Central Land Tribunal (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1297 delivered on March 6, 1986

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu334 Decided May 12, 1987

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu807 delivered on July 7, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The judgment of the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the judgment on the ground that the ruling of the appeal of this case filed by the defendant as of November 27, 1984 was unlawful for the following reasons.

In other words, according to the court below's determination that the amount of compensation calculated by the defendant's expropriation ruling on the expropriation ruling on the land of this case in the area of 756 on December 1, 1982 as the construction work for the land readjustment project was completed, the amount of 1,406.2 square meters of the land of this case is 00 square meters, and the amount of compensation calculated by the defendant's expropriation ruling on the expropriation ruling on the land of this case in the area of 1979.12. The court below found that the amount of compensation calculated by the new appraisal appraisal appraisal company and new appraisal company as 00 square meters of the land of this case was 90 square meters of the original appraisal ruling on August 27, 1984, 200 won and 100 square meters of the above land of this case as 200 square meters of the original appraisal ruling on the land of this case and 200 square meters of the new appraisal appraisal company's land of this case was 180 square meters of the new appraisal price of this case.

2. In assessing the reference land pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 (4) of the Act, in full view of the contents of the provisions of Article 48 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory including Article 48 (2) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory which provide that "in case of appraising the reference land, the compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the reference land subject to expropriation and the reference land of the reference land, the category of which is divided into five categories, and the category of which is the same as that of the reference land, if the reference land is expropriated in the area where the reference land is publicly notified by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory including the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory." In this case, the land subject to expropriation and the "land category" shall be deemed as the reference land of the same category regardless of the category of land cadastre, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 28Nu153639.

However, according to the evidence, such as the testimony, etc. of Non-party 1 after the court below's rejection, the above land appraiser's joint office is deemed to be the reference land in appraising the price of the land to be expropriated. Part 22 L/C, which is acknowledged by the court below (the court below's determination that this recognition itself is unlawful) can be recognized as having been located in the same area as the land designated as reserved land for land in the district where a land readjustment project is implemented, such as the land in this case. Thus, there is a possibility that the above reference land and the land in this case's actual use is identical, and the non-party 2 of the court below's judgment after the remand stated that the actual land category is the same as the land in this case's land category is located in the area subject to the selection of reference land such as this case's land category as the land in this case's land category and the purport of the pleading of Non-party 1's witness's testimony, and thus, even if it did not have any influence on the above real land category of reference land in this case's No. 6-1 and 21.

3. Although the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant did not claim as the grounds of appeal, they should not point out any more as to whether the judgment of the court below is reversed or not.

The court below held that in assessing the price of the land of this case by the joint offices of the above land appraiser Nos. 6-1 and 2 and non-party Nos. 6-1 and 2 as the reference land in full view of the whole purport of the pleading, the above facts can be recognized and contrary to the above facts, the part of the evidence No. 6-1 and 2, which are contrary to this, are insufficient to reverse the above recognition and there is no other counter-proof.

However, according to Eul evidence 6-1 and Eul evidence 6-2, each of the above land appraisal companies is an appraisal report prepared in writing as a result of appraisal by the joint office of 16 lots of land, buildings, standing trees, etc. including the land in this case at the defendant's request. According to Eul evidence 6-1 prepared by the joint office of new land appraisal companies, the appraisal report of "( Address 3 omitted), 62,500 won/p. (Non-Partitioned Zone 3 omitted), 22 jun-si 22 jun-si 3 4 jun-si 22 jun-si 32 jun-si 4 jun-si 4 jun-si 56,00/p. (Subdivisioned Zone), and the appraisal report of 16 jun-si 2 jun-si 3 jun-si 5 jun-si 3 jun-si 16 jun-si 16 jun-si 2 jun-si 16 ju 3 jun-

Of course, the non-party 3 of the judgment below, who was involved in the preparation of No. 6-1 of the evidence No. 6 as the land appraiser at the new land appraiser at the joint office of the new land appraiser, stated that the non-party 3 of the judgment below, "the non-party 2 of the judgment below, who was involved in the preparation of No. 6-1 of the evidence No. 6, was selected as the standard land price and assessed No. 56,000 won per square meter before 22 Part-No. 4 of the land in the land rearrangement zone, shall be deemed as the standard land price (the non-party 2 of the judgment below, the non-party 2 of the judgment below, who was the non-party 2 of the judgment below, as the land appraiser at the new land appraiser at the joint office, was selected as the reference land price for the non-party 2 of this case and the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 of this case shall be deemed as the reference land price for the non-party 1 of this case.

According to the statement of "No. 6-2" prepared by the witness, only 62,50 won per Bupyeong City ( Address 3 omitted) with the standard land price applied, was stated as 62,50 won per Bupyeong City ( Address 3 omitted), and only 36 pieces of land were stated as 16 pieces of land for which appraisal request was received at that time, and most of the remaining lands were indicated as the representative ( Address 3 omitted). However, it is nothing more than 22 jums of land as the reference land for this case and the representative was selected as 22 jums of land for which the appraisal report was made as the reference land for this case. However, it is difficult for the court below to find that there were no special reasons for the appraisal and assessment of land as a witness at each of the above witnesses' entries in No. 6-1, 2 and those of the above witnesses to be contrary to the appraisal and assessment request as well as the result of the appraisal and assessment of land under the name of the land to be expropriated by the land expropriation committee.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is not proper or there is an error of law in violation of the rules of evidence.

4. Ultimately, since the appeal by the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant is recognized to be well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining other grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)