(a) Where the reference land is the same as the land to be expropriated in an area where the reference land is publicly announced, whether the compensation amount shall be calculated based on the reference land price of another reference land, such as land category, and the situation of use (negative);

(b) Where any land to be expropriated and any specific use area within the area for which the standard land price is publicly notified exist, a transaction example of other similar neighboring land, the legality of the appraisal of compensation without considering the transaction price (negative);

(a) Where land is expropriated in an area where the standard land price is publicly announced, the amount of compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price of the reference land, the land to be expropriated and the land category of which is the same as that of the reference land, among the reference land classified into five categories, within the area subject to the selection of the reference land in question. In this case, the land to be expropriated and the land category of which are the same as that of the reference land refers to the reference land, the actual situation of use of which is the same regardless of the land category in the relevant area, and the calculation of compensation on the basis of the standard land price of other reference land shall not be permitted, notwithstanding the existence of the reference land, the land category of which is the same as the land category

B. In determining the amount of compensation due to land expropriation within the publicly notified area, where there are transaction cases of similar similar land in neighboring areas, even if there are differences between the transaction cases and the specific use area of the land to be expropriated, this is merely a reason to be considered in reflecting the normal transaction price at the time of the assessment, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no transaction cases of similar land in neighboring areas. Therefore, an assessment of compensation by taking account only of the compensation example, heading price, and the level of land price is insufficient

Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 48 (1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu929 delivered on September 20, 198 (Gong198, 1314) 88Nu9558 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1490) 88Nu3505 delivered on December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 404) 89Nu2875 delivered on March 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 974) b. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5207 delivered on November 28, 1989 (Gong190, 173) 89Nu5737 delivered on January 12, 199 (Gong190, 473) 190Nu198909 delivered on September 26, 199 (Gong1979, May 29, 199)

Attorney Kim Jong-sung, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Appellant Law Firm Tae-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Law, Attorney Park Ba-man

Seoul High Court Decision 87Nu1347 delivered on February 27, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Articles 29, 1, 3, 5, and Article 48 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), where the land is expropriated in the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, the compensation amount shall be calculated based on the actual land price of the reference land, the category of which is divided into five categories, and the same land category among the reference land selected within the area where the reference land is to be selected. In this case, the same land category as that of the reference land is the same land category as that of the reference land category, regardless of the land category in the public record, the actual land category is the same as that of the reference land category, which is the same as that of the reference land category, and the calculation of compensation amount based on the standard land price of other reference land is not allowed because it is against the purpose of the new land category of the reference land category (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu28989, Sep. 20, 198985.).

In addition, considering the reference land price of reference land selected by the above two appraisal institutions, the reference land price of the reference land of the 465-1 of the same 465-1 of Sungsandong is higher than that of 30,000 won per square, but the reference land price of the above 439-1 of the same 465-1 of the same 465-1 is higher than that of the same 35,000 won per square, but following the return of the land in this case, the appraisal of the court below's appraisal rules and the appraisal of the 422-5 of the same 465-5 of the same 465 of the same 465 of the same 439-1 of the same 439-2 of the same 465 of the same 439-1 of the same 465 of the same 465 of the compensation amount per square meters after the return of the land in this case, the reference land price is 35,000 won per square.

2. Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that the compensation amount shall be determined based on the normal market price of similar land in the region where the land price is publicly announced; therefore, it is not appropriate to assess the compensation amount by taking into account the precedents of compensation evaluation or the price level of neighboring land even though there are transaction cases, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5737, Jan. 12, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4734, Feb. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu802, May 8, 1990). According to the records, since the above new case was determined that there is no error of law by 90Da97064, Nov. 27, 1997, the court below's determination that the above new case of appraisal and similar land can not be determined based on changes in the form and quality of adjacent land in consideration of the price level of land adjacent to the area.

In addition, the issue is that the judgment of the court below prior to the remand was erroneous in assessing the compensation price of the land in this case. However, according to the reasoning of the remanded judgment of this case, the above appraiser of the court below prior to the remand did not state whether the land and specific use area of the land are different in the area designation of different land in accordance with the Urban Planning Act, notwithstanding the fact that the land and specific use area of the land are not taken into account as it is, under the Urban Planning Act, in consideration of the above sale cases, in consideration of the above sale cases, the above sale and purchase cases of the land in this case. In addition, the judgment of the court below prior to the remand for the reason that the court below erred by selecting another reference land category of the land in this case and considering the circumstances where the land price of this case increases remarkably due to the housing site development project of this case, the judgment of the court below prior to the remand was erroneous in rejecting the appraisal of the above two appraisal agencies in light of the above appraisal result, and it is not legitimate by the above two appraisal appraisal agencies. Therefore, the judgment of this case cannot be justified.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)