A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing in calculating the amount of compensation for loss under Article 29(5) of the Act

(b) Calculation of the compensation amount for losses of lands incorporated into roads by a public announcement of the relevant urban planning project;

A. It cannot be readily concluded that the amount of compensation calculated in the adjudication on an objection is not appropriate solely on the ground that an appraisal, which forms the basis of the adjudication on an objection, did not properly explain how, to what extent and to which extent the pertinent amount of compensation was taken into account, without examining the specific details of the transaction or the normal transaction price of the similar neighboring land, without considering any degree of the pertinent amount of compensation for losses.

B. The Minister of Construction and Transportation determines an urban planning to establish an access road to nearby land, including land A, and publicly announces that land A was incorporated into a road. If the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor”) thereafter expropriates land A to implement the urban planning project, the assessment of the amount of compensation for damages should not take into account the circumstances in which land A was incorporated into a road

(a) Articles 29(5) and 49 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu514 delivered on May 9, 1989, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu45 delivered on July 7, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu111 delivered on September 22, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu543 delivered on January 22, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

The argument points out that the plaintiff, a business operator, found compensation by the original decision made by the defendant joining the defendant without his/her expression of intent to make an objection, and also accepted the increased compensation in the decision on the objection, claiming and receiving it from the defendant joining the defendant, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on this point and neglected the judgment although the defendant rejected the decision on the objection of this case.

However, such assertion is based on a new fact that was not asserted in the court below, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

(1) The lower court, on the following grounds, found that the Defendant’s ruling on the instant land as of April 30, 1985 was unlawful, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim seeking cancellation of the said ruling. In other words, the lower court, on the ground that the Defendant calculated the compensation amount at KRW 43,50 per square meter for expropriation of the instant land located in the area publicly notified, and that the Plaintiff filed an objection against the said ruling at KRW 40,00,000, which was the date of expropriation of the instant land at KRW 40,00,000, based on the method of appraisal and assessment at KRW 70,000,000, the lower court determined that each of the above land appraisal and assessment at KRW 60,000,00,000, which was the date of expropriation of the instant land at KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000 won.

(2) According to Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, where land is expropriated in an area for which the standard price is publicly announced, the compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the standard price publicly notified, but the compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the price determined, taking into account the land use plan of the land in question under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes from the date of public announcement of the standard price to the date of determination of the compensation amount, the price fluctuation rate of neighboring land, wholesale inflation, the normal market price of neighboring land, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In light of the purport of these provisions, if the land appraiser or appraiser conducts an appraisal of the land price to calculate the compensation amount for the expropriation of land in the area for which the standard price is publicly notified, it shall be calculated on the basis of the publicly notified standard price, taking into account the factors for calculating all prices of the land in question and the appraisal price at 200.

However, under the premise of determining whether the amount of compensation calculated by the Defendant in the adjudication on the objection of this case was appropriate, the court below acknowledged only the fact that the market price of this case was about 400,000 won per square year after the date of the adjudication on expropriation of the land of this case and the amount of compensation at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the land of this case by Nonparty 1, who is the appraiser at the Dong branch of Cheongwon, was not considered at all at all at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the land of this case, and did not consider the result of the appraisal at all. In addition, without examining at all the specific details of the neighboring land or the normal market price of the adjacent land of this case, the court below did not properly conclude that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the compensation of the neighboring joint office of this case or did not properly explain that the amount of compensation of the land of this case was 9,500,000 won due to the testimony of Nonparty 2, who operated the real estate presentation business of this case.

(4) There is only one reference to the appraisal result of Nonparty 1. According to the appraisal result, Nonparty 1 appraised the price of the instant land as of December 7, 1984 (as of November 27, 1984, no dispute exists between the parties as to this point) as of December 7, 1984, on the premise that the building cannot be constructed on the instant land, at KRW 47,100 per square meter. However, as determined by the court below, the Minister of Construction and Transportation determined an urban planning to establish a monthly access road at 30 square meters near the instant land, including the instant land, and determined an urban planning to establish a monthly access road at KRW 19,913 square meters around 19,971 by the construction announcement No. 198, Apr. 7, 1971, it is impossible to determine that the instant land was incorporated into the urban planning project to compensate for the damages under the premise that it would not go against the construction announcement by Nonparty 1, 1976.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination as to whether the compensation for losses of the land of this case calculated by the defendant in the ruling on the objection of this case was appropriate. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)