[1] The method of assessing the amount of compensation due to land expropriation and use and the method of describing the price calculation factors of the appraisal report

[2] The extent of the reasons why the appraisal based on the land tribunal's objection ruling is unlawful and the court appraiser's appraisal is reasonable

[3] The requirements for the compensation of trees planted above the land to be expropriated as "the timbered forest under the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Loss"

[1] In assessing the amount of compensation for the expropriation and use of land, all factors of the calculation cited by the relevant statutes shall be considered in detail and comprehensively. However, even if all detailed parts of the calculation factors are explained daily or their impact on the assessment factors are not expressed numerically, there is an explanation that the factors can be specified and clarified and the degree of consideration for each factor can be objectively obtained.

[2] In order to make the appraisal based on the land tribunal’s objection illegal and appropriate appraisal by the court appraiser, it shall specifically state what difference is and what is erroneous in the appraisal by the court appraiser compared with the appraisal by the court appraiser.

[3] If the trees planted above the land to be expropriated as "reforested under the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Losses," the trees shall be regarded as a group of standing timber registered under the provisions of Article 8 of the Standing Timber Act or a similar forest, which is a forest with the approval of a forest management plan under the Forestry Act, or a forest with the management of the production factors of the forest.

[1] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act / [2] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 8(2) and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 49, 50, and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(2)3 and (4) of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 2-10(4) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Land Compensation and Loss Compensation Act, Article 15(8) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Compensation and Loss Compensation Act, Article 8 of the Standing Timber Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du1505 delivered on May 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1789), Supreme Court Decision 98Du18473 delivered on November 28, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 170) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 82Nu402 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983, 1496), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1615 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1613), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu872 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2905), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1974989 delivered on September 25, 1994 (Gong29498Sang, 197Sang, 197Du19794 delivered on September 1984).

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Central Land Tribunal and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 2001Nu1016 delivered on February 7, 2002

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

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, since Defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City, an enterprise of the 2nd urban planning facility project, grants authorization of implementation plan pursuant to Article 25 of the Urban Planning Act and publicly notified an implementation plan pursuant to Article 199-46 of the Gwangju Metropolitan City’s notification on April 17, 199, Defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City consulted with the Plaintiffs, the owner of the land to acquire the above project, including the land ( Address 1 omitted), but it did not reach an agreement on November 16, 199, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation on the land of this case on the ground that the compensation rate for the land of this case was less than that of the 1st appraisal corporation’s land was less than that of the 1st appraisal and assessment at the time of the 1st appraisal and assessment of the above land (the 1st appraisal and assessment of the land of this case was omitted at the time of the 1st appraisal and assessment of the land of this case).

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. In assessing the amount of compensation for the expropriation and use of land, each factors cited by the relevant laws and regulations shall be considered in detail and comprehensively. However, even if the detailed part of the calculation factors does not include a daily explanation or a numerical impact on the assessment factors, the assessment report for this purpose must explain the factors in question to the extent that the details and degree of consideration by each factor can be objectively accepted. Meanwhile, in order to make the appraisal based on the objection by the Land Tribunal illegal and appropriate appraisal by the court’s appraisal, the appraisal report must explain in detail what difference and wrong compared with the court’s appraisal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1505, May 26, 1998; 98Du18473, Nov. 28, 200).

The court below determined that the appraisal for the objection to the land of this case was unlawful on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and calculated the amount of compensation for the land of this case according to the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance court. However, examining the appraisal based on the appraisal based on the judgment of this case, it is clear that each of the above appraisal clearly indicates the specific calculation factors for individual factors by specifying and clarifying the specific calculation factors for each item as to the individual factors while comparing the land of this case with the standard and the like. This is not significantly different from the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance court.

Therefore, the court below should have explained specifically that the appraisal based on the objection is wrong in order to make the appraisal of the court's appraisal reasonable and reasonable. However, the court below judged that the appraisal was unlawful on the ground that the appraisal is not persuasive in assessing individual factors such as the gap rate, etc. without any specific explanation of the grounds for illegality of the appraisal of the objection. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the appraisal, or by violating the rules of evidence, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. According to Articles 49, 50, and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(2)3 and (4) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 4(4) of the Act on the Compensation for Loss, and Article 2-10(4) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where there are fixtures on the land to be acquired, the amount of compensation for such fixtures shall be evaluated as costs necessary for transfer, relocation, or transplantation, and in consideration of the profits, receipt, profitability, etc. of fruit trees, lost trees, and other bamboo to be purchased, the amount of compensation for such fixtures shall be evaluated in consideration of the profits, receipt, profitability, and other factors in the formation of prices, and Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that an assessment of standing timber shall be made by comprehensively considering the arrival of the period of felling, species, number, area of trees, growth, management of standing timber as natural forests, which are similar to the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Forestry Act.

Therefore, as found in the facts established by the court below, even if the tree in this case was planted by the above non-party, for compensation, it shall be a group of standing timber registered under Article 8 of the Standing Timber Act or a forest equivalent thereto, which is a forest where the forest management plan was approved under Article 15 (8) of the above Enforcement Rule, or where the forest production factors were carried out or business management was carried out in an enterprise. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the compensation of standing timber, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, inasmuch as there is no evidence to recognize that the tree in this case is a group of standing timber or a forest corresponding thereto under the above Enforcement Rule.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, 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 on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)