[1] The scope of compensation for the remaining land under Article 47 of the Land Expropriation Act

[2] The case holding that the value of remaining land which became a blind land was reduced due to expropriation

[1] According to Articles 46(1) and 47 of the Land Expropriation Act, if the price of the remaining land is reduced or other losses are incurred due to the expropriation of a group of land belonging to the same landowner, the landowner may claim compensation for the remaining land. Such compensation for losses shall be calculated on the basis of the general principle, unless there are any special circumstances. In this case, losses to be compensated shall include not only changes in the actual conditions of use as at the time of the adjudication of expropriation but also changes in the value of use and exchange value due to future availability or ease of transactions.

[2] The case holding that the value of remaining land which became a blind land has been reduced due to expropriation

[1] Articles 46(1) and 47 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4 of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act / [2] Articles 46(1) and 47 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4 of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 4-3 of the Urban Railroad Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6600 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1573) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1966 delivered on October 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3478 delivered on April 24, 1998)

Plaintiff 1 and eight others (Attorney Cho Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu7300 delivered on May 21, 1997

Of the part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs, the part concerning the claim for compensation for the remaining land is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. The costs of appeal dismissed are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the provisions of Articles 46(1) and 47 of the Land Expropriation Act, if the price of the remaining land is reduced or other losses are incurred due to the expropriation of a group of land belonging to the same landowner, the landowner may claim compensation for the remaining land. Such compensation for losses shall be calculated based on the general principles, unless there are any special circumstances. In this case, the losses to be compensated shall include not only the change of the actual conditions at the time of the adjudication of expropriation but also the decline in the value of the use and exchange value according to the future availability or the easiness of transactions.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the remaining land of this case is one of the remaining land remaining after part of 41,544 square meters of the center area of 182,559 square meters of forests and fields owned by the plaintiffs as urban railway land sites under Article 4-3 of the Urban Railroad Act implemented by the defendant Busan Urban Transit Authority, and there is no part adjacent to another person's land due to the above expropriation. On the other hand, the road construction agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant Urban Transit Authority cannot be established unless there is an approval of urban planning change by the competent authorities. In addition, in light of the location and width of the road under the above agreement, it is unclear whether the construction of the road is permitted under the relevant laws and regulations, and even if the above road is constructed, it is difficult to find that there is no possibility that the passage conditions of the remaining land of this case can not be restored in terms of the previous conditions or any possibility of using it temporarily. In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to find that there is no possibility to use it in the future.

Therefore, even though the court below should have sufficiently deliberated and determined the above point, it merely sought compensation for the remaining land of this case and at the same time rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the part concerning this issue is illegal, there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to compensation for the remaining land or in the incomplete hearing, which affected the conclusion. There is a reason to point this out.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, in calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the land to be expropriated by each appraisal agency, which was the basis of the judgment of the objection of this case, the court below's determination that each appraisal agency's appraisal of this case's appraisal of this case's appraisal of this case's appraisal of the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence as discussed. There is no reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs regarding the claim for compensation for losses on the remaining land is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The plaintiffs' remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal on the dismissed part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)