[1] Whether the determination of the price of individual land is unlawful solely on the ground that the price exceeds or falls short of the market price (negative)

[2] Whether the individual land price for a certain year may be additionally examined and determined in the subsequent year rather than the pertinent year (affirmative)

[3] Method of dissatisfactioning against the officially assessed individual land price of the land selected as reference land

[1] Since the individual land price is not directly related to the market price or actual transaction price of the pertinent land, it is merely unreasonable to determine that the price exceeds or falls short of the market price or actual transaction price, and its determination is not unlawful, but it does not change merely because the actual acquisition price of the pertinent land is the price by the public sale conducted in the pertinent year.

[2] Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195) and Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995) provide that the prices of individual land for any year shall be determined in the pertinent year, and Article 6 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. of Lands, etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 241 and No. 248 of the Prime Minister Decree) provides that the procedure for the determination of individual land prices shall be omitted in cases of additional investigation and determination of the prices of land omitted from the land price investigation. Thus, an administrative agency may additionally investigate and determine the individual land price for any year other than the pertinent year, and thus, the owner of the individual land cannot exercise its right to file an objection under Article 8(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal

[3] In order to raise an objection against the officially assessed price of the land selected as the reference land, an administrative litigation shall be instituted against the disposition agency, subject to the procedure of an objection under Article 8(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, which seeks the revocation of the determination of the officially assessed land price, and the illegality of the officially assessed price of the reference land, which is the basis of the calculation of the individual land price,

[1] Articles 8(1) and 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Articles 6 and 7 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Articles 8(1) and 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995); Articles 6 and 7 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [3] Articles 5, 8(1) and 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195); Article 28 subparag. 41 of the same Directive and guidelines

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15684 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 85), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu13056 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2543) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5083 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 511), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12920 delivered on March 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1762), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1648 delivered on November 10, 195 (Gong195Ha, 395Ha, 3947), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu19879 delivered on May 198, 1996

Plaintiff

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu35782 delivered on July 7, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995 and enforced from Jun. 30, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.") and the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (amended by Prime Minister Directive No. 241 of Apr. 11, 1990 and amended by Prime Minister Directive No. 248 of Mar. 29, 191; hereinafter referred to as the "Joint Investigation Guidelines") are not directly related to the market price or actual transaction price of the land, and the price of the individual land determined by the said Guidelines is not determined to be unlawful since it is remarkably unreasonable because the said price exceeds or falls short of the market price or actual transaction price (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15684, Nov. 21, 195).

The court below found that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 29, 1990 in 1,514,623 won per square meter by public sale, and the defendant decided and publicly announced the individual land price of this case in 1990 on July 14, 1993, which was omitted in the process of determining the individual land price of this case on July 14, 1993, as 820,000 won per square meter. The court below held that the determination of the individual land price of this case is not illegal merely because the individual land price of this case was lawfully made in accordance with the procedure and method stipulated in the Publication of Land Prices Act and the Joint Investigation Guidelines. The above determination of the court below is just in accordance with the legal principles mentioned above, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, lack of reason, and inconsistency with the reasoning.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 10 (1) of the Public Notice of Values Act and Article 10 (1) of the same Act provide that the prices of individual land for any year shall be determined in the corresponding year. In addition, Article 6 of the Joint Investigation Guidelines provides that the procedures for the determination of individual land prices may be omitted in cases where the price of the land omitted from the land price investigation is additionally investigated and determined. As such, an administrative agency may additionally investigate and determine the individual land price for any year other than the corresponding year, and the said additional investigation and determination cannot be said that the owner of the individual land cannot exercise the right to raise an objection as provided by Article 8 (1) of the Public Notice of Values Act for the comparison of Land Prices.

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning, it is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for the argument.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In order to raise an objection against the officially announced value of the land selected as the reference land, an administrative litigation shall be filed against the disposition authority, subject to the procedure for an objection under Article 8(1) of the Public Notice of Values Act, seeking the cancellation of the determination of the officially announced value of the reference land, and without following such procedure, the illegality of the officially announced value of the reference land, which forms the basis for the calculation of the officially announced value of the individual land, shall not be contested (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu12920, Mar. 28, 1995; 95Nu9808, May 10, 1996).

In this regard, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the price of individual land of this case based on the officially announced land price is also illegal on the wind that unfairly lower standard land price of this case's land price is also determined. As such, the illegality of the officially announced land price of the reference land cannot be viewed as a violation of the citizen's right to a trial under Article 27 of the Constitution on the ground that the illegality of the officially announced land price of the reference land cannot be asserted in a lawsuit against the determination of individual land price. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or omission of judgment, as pointed out

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)