(a) A book of appraisal and assessment of each land subject to compensation which has become impossible to verify which reference land among the reference land of several parcels for each land subject to compensation is selected (negative);

(b) Whether the appraisal and assessment of the amount of expropriation compensation not clearly specified to the extent that it can compare regional and individual factors between the reference land and the land subject to appraisal without stating that the amount surveyed through the real estate manufacturer is a normal market price and not revealing whether a transaction example of similar neighboring land exists (negative)

C. In a case where the evaluation of an agency, which made an objection by taking account of the two agencies’ evaluations with respect to the expropriation of land on one parcel, is unlawful (negative)

A. The reference land on 9 or 10 parcels of reference land for each land to be expropriated with not less than 100 parcels of land, including the land to be compensated in each appraisal report, is written, and the purpose and location of the land to be expropriated, including each of the above reference land and each of the compensation land, and other natural and social conditions are not compared with each of the above reference land and the regional and individual factors of each of the compensation land cannot be confirmed, and thus the appraisal and assessment of each of the above several reference land as to each of the compensation land has failed to be appropriate.

B. In calculating each amount of compensation for each land subject to compensation for the appraisal, the said appraisal is difficult to recognize the propriety, if it is impossible to determine whether the amount of compensation for each of the said land subject to compensation based on the standard price of each standard land is adequate, since the value surveyed by the real estate manufacturer is indicated as normal market price and whether there is a transaction example of neighboring similar land is not clarified, and it does not specify the price of neighboring land only as specific to the extent that regional individual factors can be compared between the standard land price and the land to be assessed.

C. As long as the evaluation by the agency, which made an objection by taking into account the two agencies’ evaluations with respect to the expropriation of land on one parcel, is unlawful, the said adjudication cannot be exempt from being illegal.

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 49 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9114 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 878) (Gong1991, 793). 90Nu4389 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 793). 88Nu1681 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1990, 2292). 90Nu4341 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong191, 1190).

Park Jong-gu (Attorney Kang In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Central Land Tribunal (Attorney Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8790 delivered on April 6, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not specify and specify the factors such as the normal market price of neighboring land, and did not specify and specify the method of calculating the factors in consideration of the factors. The appraisal of the above land and the actual utilization status of the above land should have been determined by the Presidential Decree No. 1981 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1984 of the same Act, 984 of the same Act, since the appraisal of the above land and the actual utilization status of the above land should have been determined by the Presidential Decree No. 1981 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1984 of the same Act, 1984 of the same Act).

According to the records, among each land to be compensated in this case, the land of 74-12 at Changdong 304-2 of Dobong-gu, Seoul and the land of 691-5, which was selected as the reference land for the above land from Hansungdong as the reference land for the above land, is the land category according to the actual utilization status as at the time of the ruling on expropriation or public land. In particular, the above land of 304-2 is a plastic factory building site at the time of the ruling on expropriation or public land, and the above land of 74-12 at the above Changdong-dong 74 was used as a residential building site at the factory, and the above land of 74-12 at the above 70-dong 30-dong 30-dong 30-dong 70-dong 70-dong 74-dong 70-dong 70-dong 70-dong 70-dong 70-dong 12 of the above land's original appraisal and assessment conditions.

However, according to the records, 10 lots of land as reference land for 100 or more parcels of land including each of the above land subject to compensation, and 30 or more lots of land as reference land for 100 or more parcels of land among each of the above land subject to compensation of this case, the appraisal of 30 or more lots of land as reference land for 100 or more lots of land, and the appraisal of 4 or more lots of land as reference land for 30 or more lots of land, including each of the above reference land and each of the compensation land of this case, are not compared with the area and individual factors of each of the above reference land and 304-2 land, so it is difficult for the court below to find that the appraisal of 4 or more lots of land as reference land for 30 or more pieces of land for 30 or more pieces of land for 4 or more pieces of land for 30 or more lots of land for excluding the above appraisal of land for 304 or more lots of land for 304 or more appraisal of the above land for each of the above common land.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)