The standards for calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by land expropriation.

In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the price fluctuation due to the approval and announcement of a plan directly aiming at the execution of the relevant public project shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without considering it

Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu217 delivered on December 27, 1983, 82Nu402 delivered on September 13, 1983, 80Nu382 delivered on September 28, 1982

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Central Land Tribunal (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu1060 delivered on August 17, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined as follows. (The grounds of appeal for correction and additional statement submitted after the lapse of the submission period are examined to the extent that they supplement the above grounds of appeal.)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the reasonable price according to the current state at the time of the decision to expropriate the land of this case including standing timber was 3,243,300 won, by integrating the evidence adopted by the court below, and the court below's above fact-finding is acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, or a violation of the reasoning of reasons, and the court below's failure to accept the application to admit evidence of the plaintiffs or to

In addition, it is clear that the court below assessed the price of the land of this case in consideration of the current state of Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, Eul evidence Nos. 7-2, and the current state of the land of this case, such as the location, soil, soil quality, and current use of the land of this case, and the standard land price of neighboring areas, etc. Thus, it is not considered at all, but it assessed based only on the standard land price of the land unrelated to the land of this case. Thus, the theory that the calculation of the compensation price is illegal is ultimately based on its independent opinion, and it is merely an error of the preparation of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below.

In addition, according to Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land shall be calculated on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, but the amount of compensation shall be calculated at a reasonable price considering the transaction price of neighboring land. Accordingly, in calculating compensation under this provision, the price fluctuation due to the approval and public notice of a plan directly aimed at the execution of the relevant public project shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without considering it (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu217 delivered on December 27, 1983). Accordingly, in determining the compensation price of this case, the judgment below which did not consider the development gains from the incorporation of the land in this case into the announcement zone of the construction project of the nuclear power plant 9 and 10, which are the relevant public project, is justifiable, and there is no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles

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.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)