logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1992. 8. 18. 선고 92누7955 판결
[토지수용재결처분취소][공1992.10.15.(930),2777]
Main Issues

(a) Where the land to be expropriated is located within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced and there are the same standard land category as that of the relevant land and its land category in the area to be selected as a unit of one km or three km; and

(b)the selection of the reference land, if it cannot be deemed similar to one another due to its surrounding environment, natural, and social conditions, such as the different specific use areas of the land and the reference land in the urban planning;

Summary of Judgment

A. In light of the purport of Article 46(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); 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 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989); the land to be expropriated should be assessed on the basis of the standard land price in the area where the standard land price is within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced and where the land and the land category are the same as the standard land price in the unit of one m2 or three m2.

B. Even if the land and the reference land are not similar to each other in their surrounding environment, natural, and social conditions, such circumstance alone does not constitute a case where the reference land price was publicly announced but it cannot be deemed that the reference land price was publicly announced because the reference land price was not legitimate, and such circumstance may be considered as one factor for price calculation in consideration of the process of comparing the local factors and individual factors of the relevant land and the reference land, or other matters affecting land price fluctuations.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 46(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (defluence by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 48 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (defluence by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug.

Reference Cases

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3505 delivered on December 26, 1989 (Gong1990,404) 91Nu2397 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong1992,1179) 91Nu5389 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992,1323) B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu707 delivered on June 22, 1990 (Gong190,1584)

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Plaintiffs Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellant

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Park Jong-yang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu12652 delivered on March 26, 1992

Text

Of the judgment below, the part against Defendant Korea Land Development Corporation and the part against Defendant Korea Land Development Corporation are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the standard land price was publicly announced on November 13, 1987 as of August 1, 13, 1988. The land incorporated into a general residential zone under an urban planning of this case is located within 17,545 square meters (the original land is 17,545 square meters, but it is 17,394 square meters away according to the evidence No. 1-2, No. 2-2, and No. 4-2, the original land is 17,394 square meters) around the surrounding land (the original land is 17,39,000 square meters away) of Yongcheon-si (the original land is 4,000 square meters away) which is located within 14,000 square meters, and the actual land category of the land is 9,000 square meters away from the remaining 50 meters away from the original land of this case, and there is no different forest land category from 13,000,00 square meters away from the original forest land area.

However, in light of the purport of Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 46 (1) of the former Land Expropriation Act, and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989), where the standard land price for the land to be expropriated is within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced, and there are the same land and land category as that of the reference land within the area where one square kilometer or three square kilometer radius, the compensation amount shall be assessed on the basis of the standard land price of the above publicly announced. Even if the land and the reference land are not similar to each other due to their surrounding environment, natural and social conditions, such circumstance alone cannot be said to constitute a case where the standard land price is publicly announced, but it cannot be deemed that the standard land price is publicly announced due to the lack of legitimate selection of reference land price, and such circumstance can be considered as one of the factors to be considered in calculating the price of the reference land through comparison of local and individual factors.

Therefore, the court below determined that the reference land cannot be considered as the reference land for the land of this case solely on the ground that the surrounding environment, natural, and social conditions cannot be seen as similar to the land of this case, shall have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the selection of the reference land under the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant Korea Land Development Corporation and the part against Defendant Korea Land Development Corporation shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow