[1] Whether the amount of land expropriation compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price determined and publicly announced under Article 10-2 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (negative), and whether the calculation of the amount of compensation is unlawful solely on the basis that the amount of land expropriation compensation was lower than the land price calculated on the basis of the publicly assessed individual

[2] Whether the compensation preference can be taken into account in calculating the fair compensation amount for the land to be expropriated (affirmative with qualification)

[1] The amount of land expropriation compensation shall be calculated pursuant to the relevant statutes, such as Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, and it does not need to be calculated based on the officially assessed individual land price determined and publicly notified pursuant to Article 10-2 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act. As a result of calculating the amount of compensation pursuant to the relevant statutes, it cannot be said that the calculation of the amount of compensation is unlawful merely because the amount of compensation was lower than the price calculated based on

[2] In full view of the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations regarding the calculation of the amount of land expropriation compensation, such as Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, the calculation of the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated does not necessarily need to be taken into account by investigating the transaction examples or the compensation examples of neighboring similar land. However, it is only possible to take into account only when the transaction examples or the compensation examples of neighboring similar land exist and the price thereof is recognized as having an impact on

[1] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 10-2 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act / [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 4 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 6 of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18931 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2029), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24018 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1846), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2664 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3003, 97Nu1382 delivered on December 12, 1997) 91.20Nu8962 delivered on September 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 309No92939 delivered on September 29, 193)

Plaintiff

The Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Lee hee-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2000Nu727 delivered on November 3, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The amount of land expropriation compensation shall be calculated in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, and it does not need to be calculated on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price determined and publicly notified pursuant to Article 10-2 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13382, Dec. 12, 197). As a result of calculating the amount of compensation pursuant to the relevant statutes, it cannot be said that the calculation of the amount of compensation is unlawful solely on the ground that the amount of compensation is lower than the price

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the amount of compensation for the land in this case should be calculated based on the officially assessed individual land price is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as calculation method of compensation for the land

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

2. In full view of the selected evidence, the court below found that the land of this case is adjacent to the non-road traffic, and that the condition of demarcated land is an irregular form, etc., and judged that there is no error of law by selecting each appraisal corporation as the reference land at the time of the ruling of this case as the reference land and calculating the amount of compensation for the land of this case. In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court below's findings and determination of facts are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to reference land

The ground of appeal disputing this issue is rejected.

3. In full view of the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations regarding the calculation of the amount of compensation for land expropriation, such as Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, when calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, it does not necessarily need to be taken into account by investigating the transaction examples or compensation examples of neighboring similar land. However, it is only possible to take this into account only when the transaction examples or compensation examples of neighboring similar land exist and the price thereof is recognized to have an impact on the assessment of the amount of compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du5085, Apr. 24, 2001; 93Nu1524, Jan. 25, 1994).

In calculating the amount of compensation of the land of this case, the court below determined that each appraisal at the time of the ruling of this case was lawful, taking into account the case of appraisal of the land ( Address 1 omitted), etc. located in the vicinity, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that ( Address 2 omitted) the transaction cases of neighboring land, including the land, or the case of compensation should be taken into account, is justifiable in accordance with such legal principles, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the appropriate amount of compensation under Article 46 (2)

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are also rejected.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)