Whether it is legitimate to select specific use areas and land category of different land as standard land with regard to land subject to expropriation in an urban planning zone by means of excluding development gains.

In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the price fluctuation caused by the approval and announcement of a plan directly aiming at the implementation of the relevant public project must be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without consideration. Thus, if a specific use area has been expropriated to implement the project subsequent to the change of land in the urban area for the implementation of the housing site development plan, it should be appraised without consideration of the change of the specific use area in selecting the standard land, applying the rate of land fluctuation, and assessing the amount of compensation, such as water erosion.

Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5443 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2735) 90Nu6323 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2840) 91Nu285 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 327) 93Nu5543 delivered on September 10, 193 (Gong193Ha, 2796)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1-appellee

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney next-time, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu274 delivered on September 28, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the price fluctuation caused by the approval and public announcement of a plan directly aimed at the implementation of the relevant public project must be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without consideration. Thus, if the specific use area was expropriated for the implementation of the relevant project with respect to the instant land which was changed to an urban area in the border area to implement the said project thereafter, it should be appraised without consideration of changes in the specific use area (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu285, Nov. 26, 191; 93Nu543, Sept. 10, 1993; 93Nu543, Nov. 26, 1991);

Based on its evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) No. 169 of the Construction Division No. 169 of Apr. 21, 1990, which was the land of this case; (b) the alteration of the designation of the surrounding area including 3,200§³ among the land listed in the attached Table 1 of the judgment below, which was attached to the attached Table 1 of the judgment below; and (c) the expropriation of the surrounding area and the housing site development project had already been commenced; (d) there was a mistake in the land size, which was 367 of July 11, 1991, the size of the land listed in the above list 1 was changed to 3,220§³, and the above list 3,570§³ was added to the above list 2 of construction volume, and only the land of this case was expropriated on May 8, 192, the court below determined that the alteration of the surrounding area including the land of this case had not been admitted to the adjacent area of the commercial area.

The Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu227 delivered on July 13, 1993 and 92Nu11084 delivered on July 27, 1993, which cited the discussion place, where the development gains from the implementation of the project concerned are included in the officially announced value of the reference land, which is the basis for calculating the amount of compensation for losses, are in conformity with the principle of fair compensation, and thus, it cannot be a precedent suitable for this case. The Court Decisions 90Nu2673 delivered on November 9, 1990, which are different cases, are not appropriate to be invoked for this case.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)