[1] Whether an agreement can be made on the duty of default or payment of excess or excess of the purchase price in the acquisition through consultation under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (affirmative), and the method of interpreting a sales contract for the acquisition through consultation

[2] In a case where the Korea Land and Housing Corporation agreed to pay excess or excess of the purchase price when it acquired land in consultation with Gap et al., the case affirming the judgment below which determined that the previous appraisal agreement was attributable to the intention, negligence, or mistake of both parties or one party (including an appraisal business entity in receipt of the request), on the ground that the previous appraisal agreement does not comply with the relevant statutes or the ordinary appraisal guidelines, or did not properly reflect the current status and characteristics of the subject land, and this agreement was applied to cases where the appraisal agreement was derived from the intention, negligence, or mistake of both parties or one party (including an appraisal business entity in receipt of the request), and that it was due

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 1, 16, and 17 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 68 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Dong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Barun, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na104993 decided October 1, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant. Of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance, Plaintiff 2’s “resident registration number (resident registration number 1 omitted)” shall be corrected to “(resident registration number

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the assertion that it is just to appraise a development restriction zone without being released, and therefore, it cannot be claimed under the special agreement of this case.

A. Since acquisition through consultation under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works”) is a juristic act under the private law, an obligation to compensate for nonperformance or to pay an excess or excess of the purchase price may be agreed according to the free will between the parties. Furthermore, in interpreting a sales contract for the acquisition of land through consultation, the existence and content of an expression of intent should be recognized as stated in the sales contract, and in cases where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract, the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the contents of the language and text, the motive and circumstance of such agreement, the purpose to be achieved by such agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and the reasonable interpretation shall be made in accordance with logical and empirical rules. However, the Act on the Acquisition of Public Works Projects aims to promote the promotion of public welfare and the appropriate protection of property rights through the efficient implementation of the public works project, and the ownership of land, etc. behind the agreement remains, so that the landowner would immediately accept the agreement.

In light of the circumstances indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that: (a) the previous appraisal and assessment did not follow the relevant statutes or the ordinary appraisal and assessment guidelines; (b) it should have been derived from the intention, negligence, or mistake of both or one of the parties (including an appraisal and assessment business entity requested; and (c) the designation of a national rental housing site was made prior to the public announcement of the first cancellation; (d) even if the designation of a national rental housing site was made on the ground that the designation of a national rental housing site was a national rental housing site, rather than a collective rental housing site, it is clear that the development restriction zone was revoked if the national rental housing site was not designated as a national rental housing site; and (e) it is reasonable that the development restriction zone was revoked if the national rental housing site was not designated as a development restriction zone; (e) the reason why the prior cancellation procedure was delayed; (e) the time of designation of the national rental housing site as a development restriction zone; (e) the reason why the previous appraisal and assessment of the national rental housing site was inappropriate; and (e) the reason why the appraisal and assessment procedure was not made based on the public announcement.

In light of the above legal principles and facts acknowledged by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation under the public service statute or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation

B. The ground of appeal that the land compensation evaluation guidelines merely set internal standards by the Korea Association of Property Appraisers is not binding on the general public or the court is correct.

However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is one of the several criteria for determining whether there was the intention, negligence, or mistake of the Defendant or an appraisal business entity entrusted by the said business entity in conducting an appraisal of the land intended for the preferential cancellation of the collective creation of this case. It can be seen that Article 31-2(2) of the Land Compensation Evaluation Guidelines is considered.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature and effect of Article 31-2 (2) of the Land Compensation Guidelines.

C. It is not permissible to agree on the obligation to pay excess or excess of the purchase price as it is an acquisition after the announcement of project approval. Accordingly, the allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing this cannot be accepted.

2. As to the assertion that the appraisal result of the first instance appraiser is unlawful

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below adopted the appraisal result of the first instance appraiser, and there is no violation of law as alleged

3. As to the assertion that there is room for cancellation of the area subject to preferential cancellation in the development restriction zone

This part of the grounds of appeal is without merit, and is not acceptable, to the purport that it interferes with the selection of evidence and fact-finding.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. Since there is an obvious error in the indication of the parties in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment, each of them is corrected. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)