In calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, the meaning of the person who bears the burden of proof (i.e., the person who is the principal) and the normal transaction price of the neighboring similar land.

Article 46(3) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9, 10, and 22 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 17 of the Appraisal and Assessment Rules, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Liability for Certification]

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1094 delivered on May 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 1776), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2397 delivered on May 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 1779), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu11524 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 838), Supreme Court Decision 99Du7968 delivered on March 27, 2001 (Gong201Sang, 1021), Supreme Court Decision 9Du5085 delivered on April 24, 2001 (Gong201Sang, 1250) (Gong201Sang, 1250), Supreme Court Decision 97Du108363 delivered on April 12, 202)

Zink

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Min Byung-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu19690 delivered on May 7, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

In light of the provisions of Article 6 (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation for Loss (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 344 of December 31, 2002) and records, the court below is justified to determine that the court below, without permission, has confirmed the fact that the plaintiff used the land No. 2 in the case of this case as the site of this case and the site of this case No. 2 in the form and quality change as the standard land at the time when the building site of this case and the land illegally altered form and quality were constructed, or the land which was changed to the form and quality of the land will be changed to the form and quality of the land."

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

In full view of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the calculation of compensation for losses in the land expropriation, the case of normal transaction of neighboring similar lands does not necessarily need to be examined and taken into account in calculating the fair compensation amount for the land to be expropriated, but where there are cases of trading neighboring similar lands or compensation and where it is proved that such price may affect the reasonable assessment of compensation amount due to normal conditions, the "normal transaction price of neighboring similar lands" in this context refers to the price formed in ordinary transaction with respect to the land identical or similar to the land to be expropriated, such as specific use area, land category, grade, land register, form, utilization situation, restrictions under the laws and regulations, etc., and the land is located in the neighboring area of the land to be expropriated, and the development gains are not included (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9783, Apr. 12, 2002). In addition, the case where the transaction can be deemed to fall under the case of normal transaction of neighboring similar lands, and the burden of proving that the compensation amount has an impact on the person asserting it by considering it (see Supreme Court Decision 25Nu 14.25.

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is proper that the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the price under Gap evidence 4 should be taken into account in calculating the compensation amount on the ground that the actual transaction price of neighboring land claimed by the plaintiff constitutes the above normal transaction cases and may affect the calculation of the reasonable compensation amount, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Judgment on the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, it is proper that the court below recognized the fact that it made an objection to increase the compensation amount of the obstacles of this case to 53,210,500 won by calculating the arithmetic mean of the appraisal values of the appraisal appraisers, and judged that there is no error in the calculation of the operating compensation amount (9.7 million won) out of the compensation amount of obstacles, and there is no error of law such as omission of judgment, incomplete deliberation, lack of reasons, and violation of the rules of evidence, etc., as alleged in the

4. 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 Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)