(a) In case where the land to be calculated is located within the urban planning districts, whether the relevant land and specific use area should be designated as the standard land only for the same land;

(b) Whether the determination of price is lawful without determining the adjustment rate based on the difference between quasi-residential areas and general residential areas;

(a) If a land to be calculated is located in an urban planning zone, whether the land is identical in terms of the urban planning is one of the important factors to determine whether the land is identical or similar to the natural social conditions of the land, but it does not necessarily mean that a specific use area should take into account only the land whose specific use area is the same as the reference land, without considering other factors, be selected as the reference land in preference to other reference land.

B. In principle, specific-use areas within an urban planning zone are divided into residential areas, commercial areas, industrial areas, and green areas pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Urban Planning Act, and quasi-residential areas and general residential areas are subdivided in accordance with Article 17(2) of the same Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act among the above residential areas, and all of them belong to a residential area, and it cannot be readily concluded that such subdivided specific-use areas are absolutely affected by the formation of land prices, as there is no difference in all of them, and even if there is a somewhat different impact on the price formation due to such difference, the disposition agency may increase or decrease the land price calculated pursuant to the proviso of Article 10(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. of Lands, etc. Act, so it cannot be said that it is extremely unreasonable to distinguish the specific-use areas of a quasi-residential area and a general residential area and thus, it cannot be said that such difference is unlawful.

Articles 4 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 17(1) of the Regulations on Appraisal and Assessment of Lands, etc. (No. 460 of December 21, 1989), Articles 7 and 8 of the same Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (No. 248 of the Prime Minister’s Directive on April 2, 191)

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10616 Delivered on March 12, 1993

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu10861 delivered on March 17, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the provisions of Articles 10(1) and (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and Articles 7 and 8 of the Individual Land Price Joint Investigation Guidelines (the Prime Minister Directive No. 241, Apr. 14, 1990, and the Prime Minister Directive No. 248, Apr. 2, 1991), in determining individual land price, one or more reference land or more which are deemed to have the usefulness similar to that of the land subject to land price calculation (hereinafter “relevant land”) shall be selected to be determined on the basis of the officially announced land price of such reference land. In light of the purport of Article 4(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. of Lands, the above provisions of the statutes shall take precedence over other factors of the reference land which are deemed to have utility value similar to that of the pertinent land in question, but it shall take into account the same as the land category, surrounding land, natural or social conditions as the reference land.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the reference land, which is the basis for calculating individual land price for the land of this case, the court below rejected the determination of the reference land of this case on the ground that the natural and social conditions are the most similar to the land of this case, in light of the characteristics of land category, utilization status, surrounding environment, form, etc., although the land of this case ( Address 1 omitted) is different from the land of this case which belongs to the quasi-residential area as a general residential area in the subdivided special-purpose area, the natural and social conditions of which are the most similar to the land of this case, and on the other hand, the land of Ansan-si, which is the reference land for which the plaintiffs asserted, cannot be deemed as similar to the land of this case, although the subdivided special-purpose area is identical to the land of this case as a quasi-residential area, in light of all the characteristics of surrounding environment, location, form, etc.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

In full view of the purport of Article 10(2) of the Publication Act and Articles 7 and 8 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Price of each Land, the Minister of Construction and Transportation determines the price of individual land by using the standard land price and the standard comparison table on the factors of the formation of the land price of the land (hereinafter “land price ratification table”) provided by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on the basis of the officially announced price of the reference land having similar usefulness to the land in question, and by determining the price adjustment rate by comparing it with each other.

According to the records, in calculating the individual land price of this case, the defendant decided the price adjustment rate based on the ratification table of a residential area, which is a common residential area ratification table of a residential area, quasi-residential area and a commercial area ratification table, industrial area ratification table, green area ratification table, and approval table of development restriction zones, which belongs to the specific residential area of this case. In addition, the adjustment rate according to the comparison table of common residential area nationwide in the ratification table of the above 1991 is not separately stipulated, and the adjustment rate between quasi-residential area and a commercial area can not be determined based on the difference between the specific residential area and the other specific use area ratification table, and it cannot be determined that there is no adjustment rate based on the difference between the specific use area and the non-residential area in the formation of the above specific use area. Accordingly, in principle, it cannot be determined that there is no such difference between the two specific use area and the quasi-residential area and the above non-residential area under Article 17(1) of the Urban Planning Act.

In the same purport, the court below did not conclude that the ratification ruling of the year 1991 was unlawful, and therefore, it is just to determine that the defendant's determination of the individual land price of this case was lawful, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the individual land price determination as in the theory of lawsuit or by misapprehending the facts. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)