If land is expropriated in the area where the standard price is publicly notified, the reasons for calculating the amount of compensation for loss;

In principle, compensation for damages for the expropriation of land in the area where the standard price is publicly notified shall be based on the publicly notified standard price, but the circumstances such as the plan for utilization of the relevant national territory from the public day to the time when the standard price, which is the reason for taking into account in the court, are considered only from the public day to the time when the land price is decided, the rate of land price changes in neighboring land unrelated to the area, the normal market price of similar land in the rate of increase in wholesale prices, and other matters stipulated in Article 49 (1) 4

Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney of the Central Land Tribunal or his/her legal representative

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu772 delivered on January 13, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in case of the expropriation of land, there are lots of land in question, and the land owner has a plan for the utilization of land, so it is not difficult to see that the price of the land in question would increase compared with the general land price in neighboring areas, the above circumstances are applied to the expropriation of the land in the area where the standard land price is publicly notified as in this case, as in this case. However, in this case, although the fact that the stone and gravel for the embankment for the embankment are somewhat buried in the land in this case is recognized, the sale quantity and the degree of quality are not known, even if the land in this case had a special plan for the use of the land in this case, even if the land in this case had a high-quality stone and gravel, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff had a special plan for the use of the land in this case, and therefore, the disposition of this case was lawful in calculating the compensation amount, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of this case is rejected.

However, the above precedents cited by the court below are different from this case where the land price is expropriated within the area where the standard price is not publicly announced. According to Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the compensation for the expropriation of the land within the area where the standard price is publicly announced as in this case shall be based on the publicly notified standard price in principle, but if the legal basis price is to be considered from the public announcement date of the land price to the adjudication date of the land use plan (it is not a private use plan for the land owner), the land price change rate of neighboring land unrelated to the area, wholesale price increase rate, normal transaction price of neighboring land, and other matters stipulated in Article 49 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and the above precedents are not applicable to this case except for the above reasons for calculating the compensation for damages (the plaintiff's assertion that the above ground for consideration of the standard price of the land in this case should not be determined first by considering the existence of the aggregate price of Article 2.

Therefore, it is wrong that the court below's determination that, in case of expropriation of land in an area where the standard price is not publicly notified, it is applied to this case, which is the case of expropriation of land in the area where the standard price is publicly notified. However, the result of rejection of the plaintiff's claim does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, according to Article 22 (3) of the Constitution at the time of the decision of acceptance of the case, the compensation for loss is not a complete compensation, but a reasonable compensation, namely, the interests of the public interest and the related parties, and the compensation under the above Act is to be determined by law by fairly balancing the interests of the public interest and the related parties. Thus, the theory of criticism against this point

The appeal is dismissed for any reason or without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)