In calculating the amount of compensation for the land subject to expropriation under Article 67(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, whether the amount of compensation for the land subject to expropriation should be assessed at the price including the development gains from other projects unrelated to the relevant public project (affirmative); and whether the same applies where the development gains have occurred after the public project approval is publicly notified

Article 67(2) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor provides that “When the amount of compensation is calculated, if the price of land, etc. is changed due to the public works in question, the amount of compensation for the land subject to expropriation shall not be considered.” In calculating the amount of compensation for the land subject to expropriation, a reasonable price shall be determined based on the price at the time of adjudication without considering the price of the relevant public works, but the development gains from the implementation of other projects unrelated to the relevant public works shall be appraised at the price including the said gains, and the same shall also apply where the development gains have

Article 67(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Park & Park, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu35322 decided August 30, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 67(2) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) provides that “When calculating the amount of compensation, if the price of land, etc. is changed due to the pertinent public work, it shall not be considered.” In calculating the amount of compensation for land subject to expropriation, a reasonable price shall be determined based on the price at the time of adjudication without considering the approval of a plan to directly implement the relevant public work and the price fluctuation due to the public notice. However, the development gains from the implementation of another project unrelated to the pertinent public work shall be assessed at the price including the said gains (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu774, Feb. 11, 1992, etc.). This also applies where the development gains have occurred after the public announcement of the authorization of the relevant public work.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that after March 31, 2003, the first public announcement of the public announcement of the project of the stockpiling project of this case, the Gyeonggi-do Governor made a decision on the road zone (a modification) with respect to the opticalam-Masan Road Packing work from the Dongbcheon-si to the Masan-si, Masan-si, separate from the stockpiling project of this case, and publicly announced it on May 1, 2006 by Gyeonggi-do public announcement No. 2006-132. Since some land owned by the plaintiffs is located adjacent to the road zone where the Maamam-Masan-Masan Road Packing Corporation was implemented, as long as development gains accrued therefrom, the court below determined that the above public announcement of the determination of the above Maamam-Masan (a modification) road zone (a modification) should be reflected in the appraisal of the situation where development gains accrued.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on land compensation under the Public Works Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined that the instant reservation project and the said luminous cancer-Masan road project should be deemed a separate public project.

According to the records, the above two projects are different from the project implementation entity, and the period of the public announcement of project approval is less than three years, and there is no evidence which can be deemed that the stockpiling project in this case was planned in consideration of the implementation of the road project in the above luminous cancer-Mamasan. In light of these circumstances, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

3. 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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)