(a) Method of selecting the reference land where the land to be expropriated is located within an urban planning zone;

(b) The nature of the lawsuit filed to increase or decrease compensation under Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act and whether the court shall examine the reasonable compensation amount in the lawsuit; and

A. In a case where a land to be expropriated is located within an urban planning zone, it is reasonable to select a specific-use area as a reference land to be applied to the same land, barring any other special circumstances, in view of the impact of the specific-use area on the price formation of the land, barring any special circumstance.

B. Since a lawsuit filed by a landowner against a ruling authority and a project owner against a co-defendant pursuant to Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act is necessary co-litigation, the failure between the landowner and the ruling authority and the project owner should be jointly determined, which is premised on the court’s determination of a reasonable amount of compensation.

Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8675 delivered on February 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 1099) 91Nu8722 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2905) 93Nu7068 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2650) B. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu285 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 327) 91Nu1615 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1613) 92Nu19415 delivered on May 25, 1993

Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Yong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 92Gu399 delivered on September 22, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney of the Central Land Expropriation Committee

In light of the impact of land to be expropriated within an urban planning zone on the price formation of land, it is reasonable to select a specific use area as the reference land to be applied to the same land, barring any other special circumstances where there exist the reference land in the same specific use area as the land in question. / Even if there are somewhat differences in the reference land in the household and the situation of use or surrounding environment of the land, such a difference should be taken into account in water brue, such as analysis of regional factors or individual factors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8722, Sept. 14,

Therefore, the appraisal by each appraisal agency, which was the basis of the judgment of this case, is erroneous in failing to comply with the principles and standards on the calculation method of compensation amount, such as the selection of land other than the specific use area as the reference land in the natural green area in the urban planning, without any special circumstances, in selecting the reference land for the land subject to expropriation located in the natural green area in the urban planning, and the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below also judged that there was an error of law as above, in light

In addition, as long as the selection of the reference land is illegal due to a mistake in the selection of the reference land, the normal price of similar similar land, which is only one of the reasons to be considered in calculating the amount of compensation, shall not be calculated. All arguments are without merit.

2. As to the third ground for appeal by the attorney of the Central Land Tribunal

According to the records, even if it is recognized that the officially announced value of the land to be expropriated in this case and its specific use area is lower than that of each reference land selected by each appraisal agency or the original appraiser at the time of a ruling on objection, which is the same as the land to be expropriated in this case, but only such fact alone is selected as the reference land and adjusted upwardly through the comparison of goods, it cannot be said that it is clear that it is less than the amount of compensation calculated by the ruling on objection, and therefore, it is not reasonable

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney and the ground of appeal No. 4 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in selecting the reference land for the land to be expropriated in this case located within the urban planning zone without any special circumstance, the court below held that each appraisal agency, which is the basis of the judgment of this case, was erroneous in the law of not complying with the principles and standards on the method of calculating the amount of compensation, such as the selection of another land as reference land, and the appraisal result by the appraiser of the court below was also erroneous, and there was no other error in the above, and there was no other appraisal that can be used as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation due to the expropriation of the land in this case. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant National Housing Corporation seeking the cancellation of the judgment of this case on the ground that the court did not dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Central Land Expropriation Corporation seeking the payment of the difference between the compensation amount and the compensation amount at the time of a legitimate appraisal, unless there are special circumstances such as the calculation of the compensation amount based on the illegal appraisal.

However, since a lawsuit brought by a landowner against a ruling authority and a company as a co-defendant pursuant to Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act is necessary co-litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19415 delivered on May 25, 1993, 200, 92Nu19415 delivered on May 25, 199). It is premised on the court’s determination that the failure of compensation should be jointly determined, which is the premise of the court’s determination that the appraisal by each appraisal agency, which forms the basis of the ruling of this case, goes against the principle of and standard for the calculation method of compensation amount, and thus, the appraisal by the original appraiser also violated the principles of and standard for the calculation method of compensation amount, and immediately dismiss the plaintiff’s request for additional compensation against the defendant National Housing Corporation. If the appraisal by each appraisal agency, which forms the basis of the ruling of this case, orders a legitimate appraisal in accordance with the appraisal method or selecting a reasonable standard of compensation amount, and thus, if the compensation amount exceeds the compensation amount of the plaintiff’s reasonable determination.

Nevertheless, the court below held that not only appraisal by each appraisal agency which forms the basis for the judgment of this case, but also the result of appraisal by the appraiser of the court below is unlawful since it violated the principles and criteria for the calculation method of compensation amount, but also by examining and determining the legitimate compensation amount based on the methods of appraisal of compensation amount, but also there is no other evidence to be used as the basis for the calculation of legitimate compensation amount, and thus, dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Korea National Housing Corporation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the structure of litigation related to the increase or decrease of compensation amount, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Each argument points this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)