(a) Calculation of compensation for land expropriation, where the reference land price was publicly announced as an area subject to the public announcement, but no selection of reference land is made;

(b) Subject matter of selection of reference land;

C. Whether Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 419 of May 21, 1987) applies to the land subject to expropriation, if the land category is a dry field, paddy field, site, forest and miscellaneous

D. If an objection is contrary to the principle or standard concerning the method of calculating the amount of compensation for loss, whether an adequate amount of compensation is required (negative)

A. In a case where a land is expropriated in an area where the standard land price was publicly announced but the standard land price was not legally announced because it was not designated as a target area according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, there is no intention to calculate the compensation for loss pursuant to Article 29(5) of the Land Expropriation Act. Therefore, the compensation amount cannot be calculated according to the method of calculating the general amount of compensation for loss under Article 46(1) of the Land Expropriation Act.

B. According to Article 29(3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the reference land shall be selected for a group of lands not more than three square kilometers, which are generally recognized as having similar natural and social conditions such as land utilization status or surrounding environment

C. In full view of the contents of Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where land is expropriated in an area where the standard land is publicly announced, the compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price of the same land category and the same land category among the reference land classified as above five categories within the area subject to the selection of the reference land. Article 18(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 419 of May 21, 1987) provides that Article 48(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory does not apply where the land category of the target land is the above five categories in light of the purport of Article 48(1)2 of the same Act. Thus, unless the land to be expropriated does not fall within the scope of application of the reference land, the compensation amount cannot be calculated on the basis of the standard land

D. In a case where the adjudication on an objection against the adjudication on the adjudication on the expropriation of land is deemed to be unlawful due to a mistake in the principle or standard on the method of calculating the amount of compensation, barring special circumstances such as where the amount of compensation calculated in the adjudication on the objection is lower than or equal to the amount of compensation calculated in the adjudication on the application of land expropriation, the court may revoke the adjudication solely on the ground that the adjudication on the application of an objection erroneously selected the principle or standard on the method of calculating the amount of compensation.

(a) Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 46(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29(3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 48(d)

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu270 delivered on February 9, 198, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu569,571 delivered on December 27, 198. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8494 delivered on June 13, 1989. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6788 delivered on May 9, 198. 88Nu6047 delivered on June 13, 1989. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu278 delivered on September 24, 198. 87Nu279 delivered on September 20, 198.

Attorney Kim Chang-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu838 delivered on September 12, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

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

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

Judgment.

(1) Under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, in a case where the reference land is expropriated in an area where the reference land has been publicly announced but the reference land price cannot be seen as being lawfully announced because it was not so designated, the compensation for losses cannot be calculated according to Article 29(5) of the same Act. Thus, the compensation for losses cannot be calculated according to the method of calculating the general compensation for losses under Article 46(1) of the Land Expropriation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu270, Feb. 9, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu569,570,571, Dec. 27, 198; Supreme Court Decision 29(3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that, in a case where the reference land is publicly announced to announce the target land, the reference land price shall not be determined by the Presidential Decree, but it shall not be determined that the present area of the reference land cannot be determined by the Presidential Decree or the standard land area of the surrounding land shall not be determined by the standard land size.

In addition, in full view of the provisions of Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, where land is expropriated in the area where the standard land is publicly notified, the compensation amount should be calculated on the basis of the standard land price of the same land among the reference land classified as five categories in the region where the standard land is to be selected, and the land category of the reference land should be the same as that of the reference land. Thus, Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Ordinance No. 419 of May 21, 1987) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 419 of May 21, 198) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the case, it shall not be applied to cases where the land to be expropriated is Jeon, paddy, land, forest, and miscellaneous land.

(2) According to the court below's finding that the price of the land in this case, which is the land to be expropriated in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, including 62-1 forest and mountain village 67-1 forest and mountain village 67-1 forest, was publicly announced on August 21, 1978, but the reference land price was not selected within 3 square kilometers adjacent to the land to be expropriated. The 1st land appraiser and the 2nd land appraiser's joint office as requested by the defendant, and the 5th land appraiser's 4th land price and 140 forest and mountain village 5-dong, Gangseo-dong, Seoul, which are the land to be expropriated in this case, were the 5th land price of the land in this case based on the reference land price of the 4th land in this case, and the defendant recognized this appraisal as appropriate and decided on the basis of the 5th land price in this case's appraisal and assessment based on the 14th land price in this case's new land to be expropriated. Thus, the 5th land price of this case's land to be publicly announced.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

As in the case of this case, if the appraisal of a joint land appraisal company and a joint land appraisal company, which are the basis of the decision on the objection to the land expropriation decision, is judged to be illegal because they were mistakenly selected the principles or criteria on the method of calculating the amount of compensation for loss, and thus the decision on the objection is deemed to be unlawful, notwithstanding the above, unless special circumstances are acknowledged, such as that the amount of compensation calculated in the decision on the objection as a result of the decision on the objection is less than or less than the amount of compensation lawfully calculated in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court may revoke the decision on the objection solely on the ground that the decision on the objection is not deemed to be appropriate in comparison with the amount of compensation calculated in the decision on the objection by stating the appropriate amount of compensation calculated in accordance with the lawful method of assessment, and that the decision on the objection is wrong (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu278, Jun. 24, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu279, Sept. 20, 19888).

Therefore, the court below determined that the appraisal of each joint office of the above land appraiser was unlawful since it erred in selecting the principle of calculating the amount of compensation for loss, and further held that even if the market price at the time of the appraisal of the land to be expropriated (the appraisal conducted in accordance with the method of calculating the amount of compensation for loss under Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act) was much higher than the amount of compensation calculated in the adjudication on objection, the determination of whether the appraisal result is appropriate does not affect the conclusion of the judgment below, and it is not acceptable to argue that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of law by failing to properly deliberate on this issue, or by misunderstanding the evidence.

3. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor 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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)