Whether Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Expropriation Act applies to the compensation for the remaining land under Article 47 (affirmative)

According to Article 47 of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 4 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991) applicable mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 57-2, Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Loss and Compensation Act, the method and standards for calculating the amount of compensation for losses reduced due to land expropriation shall apply to the methods of calculating and standards for calculating the amount of compensation for

Article 47 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 57-2 of the former Land Expropriation Act, Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu854 delivered on March 11, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the land of this case was originally owned by the plaintiffs as part of the 30,858.2m2m2 in Busan Northern-gu, which is a rectangular type, which is the direct possession of the plaintiffs. Since the expropriation of this case, the area of the 26,989m2 in Busan Northern-gu, which is the remaining land due to the expropriation of this case was changed to the form of a rush, and the area of the 5,800m2 in the area of the land of this case among the remaining land was changed to the form of a rush. The alteration facilities of this case, which is the object of the expropriation of this case, are dangerous and suspected facilities, and the price decline of neighboring land, which is about 1.5 times the area of the land of this case, which is about 1.5 times the area of the land of this case, was reduced to the extent of 15%. The court below was just in examining the process of cooking the evidence in fact finding and judgment, and there is no reason to conclude

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 47 of the Land Expropriation Act, if the price of the remaining land is reduced or other losses are incurred due to the expropriation or use of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner, the provisions of Article 4 of the Public Loss Compensation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis except as otherwise provided in the Land Expropriation Act. Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Loss Compensation Act provides for the method of calculating the amount of compensation for losses and the method of calculating the amount of compensation for losses. Article 26(2) of the Public Loss Compensation Act provides for the method of assessing the amount of losses where the price of the remaining land is reduced due to the incorporation of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner into a public project site. As such, Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Loss Compensation and Compensation Act shall apply to the method and criteria for calculating the amount of compensation for losses reduced due to the expropriation of land.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. The precedents pointed out in the theory of lawsuit are not appropriate in this case.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)