A. The appeal against the judgment of the court is dismissed

(b) The method of calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the expropriated land, the selection of reference land price and the announcement of reference land price of which have been publicly announced;

C. Whether a court can immediately revoke the adjudication disposition on the ground that the choice of the principle of appraisal of compensation for land expropriation is unlawful

A. The appeal is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself. Therefore, the appeal against the judgment in favor of one party shall not be allowed even if he/she is dissatisfied with the reasons for the appeal.

B. Although there was a public notice of the land subject to a public notice of the standard land price, the land selected as the standard land price in the adjoining areas without a public notice of the selection of the standard land price and the standard land price also cannot be seen as adjacent or similar land stipulated in Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the calculation of the compensation amount for the land subject to expropriation shall be governed by the general provisions

C. As long as the court deliberated on a disposition of expropriation of land, and concluded that the choice of the principle of appraisal of indemnity is unlawful, the adjudication disposition itself may be revoked, barring any special circumstance to deem that the calculation of indemnity itself was appropriate despite such errors.

A. Article 392 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Da529 delivered on November 8, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 84Nu325 delivered on December 24, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu315 delivered on August 19, 1986. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu278 delivered on June 24, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu315 delivered on August 19, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu45 delivered on July 7, 1987

Plaintiff’s attorney-at-law conciliation system

Central Land Tribunal (Law Firm Han-hee, Attorneys Lee Tae-hee, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu532 delivered on February 12, 1987

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

An appeal is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, and in light of the nature of the appeal system, the appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her cannot be allowed even if he/she is dissatisfied with the reasons for the appeal system (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu315, Aug. 19, 1986). Thus, the appeal of this case by the plaintiff against the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is unlawful, and this is not a kind of correction, and thus, it cannot be dismissed.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, found the fact that the standard land is publicly announced as the area subject to the public notice of the standard land price stipulated in Article 29 (2) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, including each of the instant land, but the standard land price is not designated under Article 29 (3) and (4) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and there is no standard land category identical or similar to the category of each of the instant land among the reference land located in adjacent areas. The land appraisal company, which is the original adjudication authority of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City local Land Tribunal or its ruling authority, received appraisal request from the defendant, which is the land appraisal agency, shall be assessed under Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, based on the standard land price of the adjoining areas, and the average value of the appraisal price of the adjoining land shall be determined as compensation amount.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on acceptance and compensation.

(2) As long as the court decided that the choice of the principle of appraisal of indemnity is illegal as a result of deliberation of the land expropriation ruling, the adjudication disposition itself can be revoked, barring any special circumstance to deem that such errors were appropriate in calculating indemnity itself (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu278, Jun. 24, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu271, Jul. 7, 1987). In such a case, it does not necessarily mean that it should be compared with the compensation amount in the adjudication disposition by deliberating on the compensation amount according to legitimate methods and criteria, and it should not be compared with the compensation amount in the adjudication. However, the court below did not err by misapprehending the judgment below that the compensation amount of the instant real estate assessed by the defendant was merely the amount at least 2,356,491,000 won, which was calculated by lawful methods, and thus, it cannot be appropriate for the calculation of compensation amount.

The defendant's argument is not accepted because it is nothing more than criticism of the original court on the above opinion and opposition.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)