The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the relevant provisions of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and the Enforcement Rules thereof, in calculating the amount of compensation for land subject to restrictions under public law, if the relevant restrictions in public law are themselves a general planning restriction that achieves the purpose of restrictions, such as designation or alteration of specific-use area zones under the former Urban Planning Act, and is not directly related to specific urban planning projects, such restrictions should be evaluated as they are in its entirety.

On the other hand, when the designation or alteration of specific urban planning facilities, such as road and park, is for the implementation of a specific public project even if the designation or alteration of specific urban planning facilities, such as planning and decision for the installation of specific urban planning facilities, are restricted by the specific project, or the specific use area, etc., which is subject to general planning restriction, is for the implementation of a specific public project,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1020, May 24, 2012). If it is intended to implement a specific public project without designating or altering a specific use area, etc. at a specific point of time with respect to a certain parcel of land subject to expropriation is for the implementation of a specific public project, such designation or alteration is deemed a restriction directly aiming at the implementation of the relevant public project, and thus,

In order to say that a specific use area, etc. was not designated or modified for the implementation of a specific public project, the act of not designating or changing a specific use area, etc. should be objectively clear that it constitutes abuse of the right of planning discretion when excluding the circumstances that land is provided for a specific public project.

Supreme Court on August 27, 2015