If no reference land designated as a residential area is selected in the area subject to the selection of reference land for land to be expropriated as a residential area under the Urban Planning Act, the amount of compensation for expropriation;

Even if the Minister of Construction and Transportation divided the area of the reference land into a special-purpose area (residential area, commercial area, industrial area, green belt area) as stipulated in Article 17 of the Urban Planning Act and did not select the reference land for each region, if he subdivided the area of the reference land into five categories of land, and divided into five categories of land, and then selects one reference land for each grade according to the situation of land utilization or condition of the land by divided category, if the area of the reference land was divided into not more than three categories according to the classification by category, and if the land to be expropriated is located within the area of the reference land and its category is one of the five categories of land in the above five categories, it cannot be deemed that the land designated as a residential area within the area of the reference land where the reference land was designated as a residential area, even though the reference land was publicly announced but the reference land is not so designated, it cannot be deemed that the reference land price is within the area where the lawfully announced land price was not publicly announced. Therefore, such circumstance should be taken into account as the price calculation factor in calculating the compensation for damages for expropriation.

Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 48 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989)

Law Firm Sung-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the Central Land Expropriation Committee

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

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu12877 delivered on December 14, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of National Territory before the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 4120 of April 1, 1989, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall survey and evaluate the land price to promote the adequate maintenance of land prices and the promotion of land utilization (paragraph (1)), and shall, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, examine and evaluate the arm's length price for the reference land selected from among a group of lands recognized as having similar natural and social conditions as of the date of public announcement of target area (paragraph (3)). According to Article 48 (1) of the former Act before the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of August 18, 1989, since the land category of reference land under the provisions of Article 29 (3) of the Act is classified into five square kilometers or 3 square kilometers, and then the land category of such reference land is not divided into three different categories, land category of reference land or five miscellaneous land category of reference land within an area subject to public announcement of the selection of such reference land according to the classification and grade No. 2 of reference land.

Even if the land to be expropriated was designated as the reference land in the area of reference land containing the land as the land designated as a residential area within the urban planning zone, such land is not designated as the reference land, such circumstance should be considered by the land appraiser as the factor of price calculation in assessing the compensation for losses incurred by the expropriation of the land.

The judgment of the court below with the same opinion is just and not justified.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment of the court below that the judgment of the court below was not unlawful on the ground that the amount of compensation for losses on the land subject to expropriation calculated by the defendant in the decision of the objection of this case does not exceed the amount of compensation for losses on similar neighboring land does not constitute an unlawful act as stated in the theory of lawsuit. Thus, there is

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)