A. Do of the litigation period for the authorization of the implementation of the redevelopment project, and whether the revocation of the adjudication of expropriation can be sought on the ground of illegality in the process of the adjudication of expropriation or subsequent execution

B. The meaning of the class prescribed in Article 48 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989) concerning the criteria for selection of the reference land (=grade

A. Authorization to implement a redevelopment project is an administrative disposition, which is independently subject to administrative litigation, and thus, at the stage of adjudication of expropriation after the lapse of the litigation period for the preceding disposition, the cancellation of the adjudication can not be claimed on the ground of its illegality unless there are special circumstances that the authorization to implement the redevelopment project is deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, and the same is also applicable to the case where there

(b) As the standard for the selection of the reference land, it is classified into five categories among the target areas of the reference land, and classified into five categories of land, and classified category into three or less categories according to the conditions or conditions of land utilization by classification, but the grade as referred to in Article 48(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which stipulates that the grade may be further subdivided in consideration of specific-use area, land price conditions, etc. within the urban planning zone means not a grade of land listed in the land land cadastre under the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, but a grade of three different categories by category by land category.

(a) Article 39(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act; Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 29(3) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (Elimination by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 48(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Elimination by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989);

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2936 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong1990,549) 90Nu971 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992,323) 91Nu4324 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong192,1317)

[Judgment of the court below]

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu12214 delivered on September 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to Article 39(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the authorization of the execution of a redevelopment project shall be considered as the project approval under Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act. Since the authorization of the execution of the redevelopment project is independent of the nature of the administrative disposition and is subject to an administrative litigation. Thus, unless this is null and void, the claimant of this disposition shall seek cancellation of the authorization of the execution of the redevelopment project as an object of the administrative disposition. In the stage of the adjudication of expropriation after the lapse of the period of the lawsuit, the adjudication cannot seek cancellation of the authorization of the execution of the redevelopment project on the ground of its illegality (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2936 delivered on Jan. 25, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9971 delivered on Nov. 26, 1991; 91Nu4324 delivered on Mar. 13, 1992).

The record reveals that there is no circumstance to regard the approval of the execution of the redevelopment project of this case or the invalidity of its execution as a matter of course. Thus, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the disposition of expropriation of this case on the ground that there is an illegal cause for the execution of the redevelopment project of this case based on the above opinion is proper, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Land Expropriation

On the second ground for appeal

1. According to Article 29(3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory before the revision (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), the assessment of the standard land price shall be conducted in accordance with the Presidential Decree and the assessment of the arm's length price per unit area as of the date of the public announcement shall be conducted for the reference land selected from among the group of lands recognized as similar to the surrounding environment and other natural and social conditions. Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the criteria for the selection of the reference land as provided in Article 29(3) of the same Act shall be as follows. Article 29(2) of the same Act provides that the assessment of the standard land price shall be classified into five categories from among the target land of the reference land, and it shall be subdivided by five categories from each category into five categories, and the grade may be further subdivided by considering the use condition or condition of the land within the urban planning zone. The grade as provided in the Enforcement Decree of the above Act shall not refer to the land grade by the above.

In light of the records, it is reasonable to select the appraiser of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the reference land for the land of this case on the ground that the land of this case and its land category is identical to the land of this case and its use area, and its natural and social conditions are similar to the social conditions. Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize the appraisal result of the appraiser as legitimate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the selection of reference land or legitimate compensation.

The author argues that the land ( Address 2 omitted) or ( Address 3 omitted) is more appropriate as the standard land rather than the above land, and argues that it is reasonable to make a land grade under the Local Tax Act as one of the reasons therefor, but it cannot be accepted as it is more appropriate as the standard land because the land grade under the Local Tax Act is equal or similar to that under the Local Tax Act.

2. In addition, according to the records, the above appraiser calculated the reasonable amount of compensation for the land of this case, and the sales case of the land of 444-1 site in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Do is deemed to include development gains from the redevelopment project of this case in light of the land price level of neighboring land, and the court below adopted this. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence pointing out the land price.

3. In addition, according to the appraisal report by the above non-party, the appraisal price of the land of this case should be KRW 648,862.5 per square meter. However, since the conclusion of appraisal by the above non-party is understood to the purport that the appraisal price per square meter is KRW 648,00,000, the appraisal price per square meter is 648,000, it cannot be accepted.

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