(a) A method of calculating compensation for losses for any expropriated land, the selection of reference land price and reference land price of which have been publicly announced, although such reference land price were publicly announced;

(b) The method of assessing and assessing the amount of compensation for losses in adjudication and expropriation of land subject to restrictions under public law; and

A. In a case where the land to be expropriated was publicly announced as an area subject to the standard price, but there was no selection of the source price, and therefore, in a case where a legitimate standard price has not been publicly announced, there is no applicable standard price in the relevant area, and thus, it is inappropriate to determine the standard price of the reference land in a neighboring (similar) area in light of the purpose and criteria for selection of the reference land. Therefore, the calculation of compensation amount shall be governed by the general provisions of Article 4

(b)In view of Article 46(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(3) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, there is no difference between the expropriation and the expropriation. Therefore, in calculating the amount of compensation for loss due to the expropriation of adjudication, if the expropriation is subject to restrictions under public law as in the case of the expropriation, even if the land is subject to restrictions under public law directly for the purpose of the implementation of the public project in question, the normal evaluation should be conducted in a state where there is no such restrictions.

Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act

(a) Supreme Court Decision 83Nu315 Decided August 19, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu271 Decided July 7, 1987 (dong)

Plaintiff 1 and 1 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Central Land Tribunal, Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s General Law Office, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant’s intervenor’s intervenor

Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s General Law Office, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant’s intervenor-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu682 delivered on December 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the appellant.

The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act, in principle, the amount of compensation due to land expropriation shall be calculated on the basis of the land price at the time of adjudication of expropriation, and in the case of land in an area where the standard land price under Article 29 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is publicly announced, the standard land price shall be calculated on the basis of the publicly notified standard land price. In Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the standard land price under the provisions of paragraph (1) of

However, the above standard land price is to be publicly announced through the procedure of selecting the reference land in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 29(1) through (4) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory). Thus, in the case where the land to be expropriated was publicly announced as the reference land price, but there was no reasonable standard land price selection, and thus, it is inappropriate to determine the standard land price in neighboring areas based on the standard land price of the reference land in light of the purpose and criteria for the selection of the reference land. Thus, the calculation of compensation amount is a precedent of the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu315, Aug. 19, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu315, Aug. 19, 198). Thus, in the case of the land to be expropriated, the compensation amount due to the land expropriation should be determined on the basis of the land price at the time of the adjudication, and if the land price is not publicly announced, it should be determined on the basis of the most objective method of land expropriation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated that the land to be expropriated was subject to the public notice of the previous standard price, but there was no selection of the standard price within a group of land incorporated into the park site including the land in this case, so the compensation price shall not be calculated based on the standard price at the time of expropriation ruling pursuant to the general provisions of Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, and that the land in this case shall be calculated based on the reasonable price at the time of expropriation ruling as of November 11, 1982, and that the land in this case was immediately expropriated for the park construction project without any limitation under the public law. In determining the legitimacy of the appraisal method of the compensation amount at the time of the adjudication in this case, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the appraisal method of the land in this case, which is not based on the appraisal standard at the time of original adjudication, as well as the appraisal standard of each of the land in this case, and without considering the specific appraisal standard of the land in this case as the appraisal standard of the land in this case.

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.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)