(a) Examples that a written request for a retrial seeking alteration of a ruling on expropriation falls under the objections under Article 73 of the Land Expropriation Act;

(b) Whether a standard amount of taxation-based market price based on the value of land, the land category of which is the whole land, can be the basis for the appraisal of land expropriation for apartment construction (negative);

(c) Whether the price fluctuation as a result of the public announcement of the Ministry of Construction for the purpose of implementing a public project under the Housing Construction Promotion Act is considered in calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation (negative);

A. It is clear that the plaintiff and 16 other parties receive the original written adjudication of acceptance and request the change of the defendant's adjudication of acceptance on the ground of the lack of compensation, etc., "written request for a retrial against apartment complex expropriation" in this case is clearly written in the plaintiff's address, name and reason for filing the objection, and then the summary of the objection was revised by the written objection form prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Land Expropriation Act. Thus, the above written request for a retrial constitutes an objection under Article

B. If the land grade and the real estate price of the land owned by the Plaintiff are assessed according to the value of the farmland as the land category on which the standard value of the land category is recorded, and the amount of excess, it cannot be an absolute standard for the appraisal of the price for compensating for land expropriation for apartment construction.

(c) According to Article 46(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, the amount of compensation for losses arising from the expropriation of land shall be calculated on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, but at the reasonable price in consideration of the transaction price of neighboring land. Accordingly, in calculating the amount of compensation pursuant to the above provisions, the price fluctuation arising from the approval and announcement of a plan for the direct purpose of the implementation of the public project should be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without considering it. Therefore, the price fluctuation arising from the announcement of the construction schedule for the instant land

(a)Article 73 of the Land Expropriation Act;

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu113 Decided July 24, 1979

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Central Land Tribunal (Attorney Hwang Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Hwang Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu215 delivered on July 1, 1980

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff filed an objection on December 14, 1978 after being served with the written adjudication on acceptance of this case on November 6, 1978, and the plaintiff removed it on November 14, 1978. Since the written objection cannot be viewed as a written objection under Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in light of its form and content, it cannot be viewed as a written objection under Article 17 of the same Act. Thus, the court below's decision on November 6, 1978 as to the assertion that the objection in this case is inappropriate for the application period. The plaintiff was served with the certified copy of the written adjudication on acceptance of the defendant on October 20, 1978, and the non-party 16 of the above written adjudication on acceptance of the defendant's written adjudication on the expropriation of the above defendant on the ground that it did not clearly state the address of each of the above parties, and it cannot be accepted by the plaintiff 1714 of the above written objection.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the above 20-year-end land owned by the plaintiff 1 was 40-year-end and 40-year-end 20-year-end 70-year-end 20-year-end 17-year-end 17-type 9-7 appraisal land which was located in the village-dong-dong-dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (as at the time of the above 1 omitted), and that the above 40-year-end 2-level 9-year-end 9-year-end 17-year-end 9-year-end 20-year-end 17-year-end 9-Gu 20-year-end 17-year-end 9-7 appraisal land which was located in the above project district under the provisions of Article 34 of the Land Expropriation Act, and that there was no change in the land category of the above 5-year-end 20-meter-based appraisal price of the plaintiff.

However, the standard market price for the above three parcels of land including this case, which are owned by the plaintiff, shall not be an absolute standard for the appraisal of the price for the purpose of the land expropriation for this case, as the grade and table amount according to the value as the farm land which is the land category in the public record. The so-called neighboring land price, which is listed in the result of appraisal by the appraiser 2 adopted by the court below, is not at the time of the adjudication of the original land, but at the time of the adjudication of the land, and the compensation amount due to the expropriation shall be calculated on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of the expropriation, but at the time of the determination of the expropriation, at the reasonable price considering the transaction price of the neighboring land in the above provisions, the determination of compensation amount due to the expropriation of the land shall be based on the price at the time of the expropriation of the land by the intervenor at the time of the above determination of the expropriation. Thus, in calculating the compensation amount pursuant to the above provisions, the determination of the compensation amount due to the above appraisal of the land at the time of the land for this case shall not be considered.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)