(a) Criteria for calculation of losses suffered by owners due to land expropriation;

(b) Effect of the receipt of land expropriation compensation, which expresses its objection to reservation;

A. The calculation of the amount of loss caused by the expropriation of land shall be based on Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory when the reference land price is publicly announced at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of land, and Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act when the reference land price is not publicly announced. The effect of the public notice on the reference land price is not retroactive to the public notice on the target area. Thus, even if the reference land price was publicly announced before the adjudication on expropriation of land, unless the reference land price was publicly notified at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of land, the reference land price was publicly notified before the adjudication on the application for

(b) Even if the landowner has received the compensation paid or deposited from the business operator under the provisions of Article 61(2)1 or (3) of the Land Expropriation Act, unless he has expressed his intention of reservation, such as partial receipt at the time of receipt of the compensation, etc., he shall not be deemed to have succeeded to the adjudication of the Land Expropriation Committee.

(a)Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu490 decided Oct. 11, 1983; 81Nu124 decided Feb. 28, 1984; 83Nu268 decided Sep. 25, 1984

Plaintiff

Attorney Cho Young-young, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu762 delivered on April 26, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "the price at the time of adjudication on expropriation shall be the reasonable price taking into account the transaction price of neighboring land," and Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that "the standard price for the standard land selected by the Minister of Construction and Transportation after investigating and assessing the arm's length price of the unit area as of the date of public announcement of the target area shall be based, but the land price shall be determined based on the increase rate of land prices and other factors shall be taken into account from the date of public announcement of the standard land price to the date of adjudication on the compensation amount, and there is a difference in the direct object and time of appraisal, and the calculation of losses due to expropriation of land in light of the purport of each provision above, if the standard land price at the time of adjudication on expropriation of land is announced under Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, and there is no public announcement of the standard land price at the time of adjudication on expropriation of land at the time of public announcement of the above standard land price at 981.

2. As to the grounds of appeal No. 2 by Defendant Litigation Attorney and the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Attorney:

Even if a landowner received compensation paid or deposited from an entrepreneur pursuant to Article 61 (2) 1 or (3) of the Land Expropriation Act, unless he expressed his intention of reservation such as partial receipt at the time of receipt of the compensation, he shall not be deemed to have taken advantage of the adjudication of the Land Expropriation Committee. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the local Land Expropriation Committee around August 11, 1980, which was prior to the adjudication of expropriation of this case, decided to have the land of this case and its ground be expropriated in 30,319,00 won, and the plaintiff, accordingly, reserved and received an objection against the above expropriation as part of compensation which the head of Young-gu Gun, a business operator, reserved and received, and raised an objection against the above expropriation, and the defendant revoked the above expropriation ruling and rejected the defendant's assertion that the above local Land Expropriation Committee again accepted the compensation amount of this case on June 29, 198, and therefore, the court below's decision was justified in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Therefore, the appeal is 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)