The case holding that the compensation for losses not considered due to the price decline of the remaining land is unlawful on the ground that the form, rent, etc. of the remaining land has changed more disadvantageously than the previous one by partially accepting the land, and accordingly the unit price of the remaining land has fallen lower than the previous one.

The case holding that the compensation for losses not considered due to the price decline of the remaining land is unlawful on the ground that the form, rent, etc. of the remaining land has changed more disadvantageously than the previous one, and accordingly the unit price of the remaining land has decreased lower than the previous one.

Articles 46, 47, 48, and 57-2 of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, Act No. 6656 of February 4, 2002), Article 4 of the former Special Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation of Losses (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, Act No. 6656 of February 4, 2002), Article 26 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Lee Jae-in et al.

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Law Firm Cheong-Slue, Attorneys Choi dilution et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Changwon District Court Decision 2001Gu1496 delivered on January 23, 2003

January 9, 2004

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following cancellation and payment order shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

A. On February 22, 2001, the part of the rejection of the Plaintiff’s objection against acceptance of each real estate listed in attached Table 1, which was by the Central Land Tribunal against the Plaintiffs on February 2, 2001, which was equivalent to KRW 4,207,50, and KRW 5,074,250, among the part of the rejection of the Plaintiff’s objection against the Plaintiff’s objection against acceptance of each real estate listed in attached Table

B. Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation shall pay to Plaintiff Lee Jae-sung the amount of KRW 4,207,50, KRW 5,250, and KRW 5,074,250 per annum from October 14, 200 to February 6, 2004, and KRW 20 per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendants' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes in total, including the first and second instances, and three shall be borne by the defendants, and the remainder by the plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

(1) On February 22, 2001, the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee") cancelled the respective amount of KRW 6,888,00 among the parts dismissed the Plaintiff's objection against the Plaintiff's transfer of real estate as stated in attached Table 1 of the Real Estate List 1 (hereinafter referred to as "2.28" as stated in the purport of the claim) against the Plaintiffs, and cancelled the respective amount of KRW 10,61,50 among the parts dismissed the Plaintiff's objection against the Plaintiff's transfer of real estate, and KRW 10,61,50 among the parts dismissed the Plaintiff's objection against the Plaintiff's transfer of real estate. (2) The Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Corporation") shall pay the Plaintiff's transfer of real estate, KRW 6,888,000, KRW 10,611,500, and each of the above amounts to KRW 25% per annum from the next day to October 14, 2000.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto are dismissed.

1. Details of the ruling on an objection;

The following facts are recognized as either a dispute between the parties or an obvious dispute even with the purport of the entire pleadings.

A. On October 29, 1996, the Defendant Corporation announced the implementation plan for the 2nd phase of the Gangnam River System metropolitan waterworks (hereinafter “the project in this case”) by the Minister of Construction and Transportation. On July 28, 1999, the Busan Regional Land Management Office announced the implementation plan for the 1999-166, and on March 15, 200, the Busan Regional Land Management Office announced it under Article 200-50 of the Busan Regional Land Management Office notification.

B. The plaintiff Lee Jae-chul was divided into the owner of Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si (hereinafter referred to as the "Sacheon-si"). 543-2 Doha-ri, 1,275 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "the land before the first division of this case"). As the land before the first division of this case is incorporated into the project implementation district of this case, the land before the first division of this case was incorporated into the project implementation district of this case as stated in attached Table 1-1 of attached Table 1-2 (hereinafter referred to as the "the first expropriation land of this case") and the real estate listed in attached Table 2-1-2 of attached Table 2-3 of real estate list 2-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "the first expropriation land of this case"), and the land of this case was incorporated into the "Yacheon-do 537-14, 264 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "the land before the second division of this case"). The land of this case and the remaining land of this case 1-2-5 m2.

C. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant Corporation consulted on the expropriation of each of the instant expropriations, but did not reach an agreement, but did not request the Defendant Corporation to file an application for adjudication for the expropriation of each of the instant expropriations as soon as possible. Accordingly, the Defendant Corporation filed an application for adjudication on the expropriation of each of the instant expropriations on the part of the Defendant Central Land. On August 24, 2000, the Defendant Heavy Land Corporation accepted each of the instant expropriations for the implementation of the instant project. In order to compensate for losses of the instant expropriations 54,637,50 won (7,500 won x 705 square meters x 77,500 won) and the compensation for losses of the instant expropriations 2, 56,411,250 won (1,535 square meters x 73,500 won x 1,500 won x 13, 200.

D. On September 30, 200, the plaintiffs collected the above amount of compensation on the ground that there is no compensation for the decline in the price of the remaining land, etc., and filed an objection on the part of the defendant Jung-gu. Accordingly, the defendant Jung-gu had the (ju), the Pacific appraisal corporation and the Japanese appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "each appraisal institution") evaluate the price of each land of this case as of the date of the above expropriation ruling, but each appraisal institution's average value of each appraisal institution was less than the compensation for losses as set forth in the above (C). On February 22, 2001, each appraisal institution's average value of each appraisal institution was less than the compensation for losses as set forth in the above (hereinafter referred to as "the ruling of this case").

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant objection ruling was unlawful on the grounds as delineated below, and seek for the revocation of the part corresponding to KRW 10,611,500 among the part that rejected the Plaintiff’s objection in the instant objection ruling, and the part that rejected the Plaintiff’s objection in the instant objection ruling, and the payment of each money seeking the revocation, which is the difference between the amount recognized in the instant expropriation ruling and the amount recognized in the instant expropriation ruling, as stated in paragraph (c) above, with respect to the Defendant Corporation.

(1) Around each land of this case, without considering all precedents of KRW 133,107 and KRW 142,182 per square meter, each of the real estate of this case, the current utilization status, shape, and market price of other surrounding areas, etc., and of KRW 574-8 per square meter, which are similar to each other’s land of this case, was assessed in an incomparably to the extent that the value of each land of this case is too low.

(2) (A) The Defendant Corporation, while implementing the instant project, laid underground water supply pipes for each of the instant expropriated lands, installed a embankment of 1.5 meters above the above height, was divided into the land of this case No. 1 and the real estate listed in Section 2.2. of the attached Table No. 2-2 of the real estate list No. 1 and the real estate No. 2-4.5 of this case, which was a group of the instant expropriated land and the attached Table No. 2-4.5 of the real estate list No. 2 of this case, were divided into the real estate of this case, and the remaining land was the remaining land. Each of the real estate listed in Section 2 of the attached Table No. 2 of the real estate list No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2 of the real estate list including the remaining land of this case, which was higher than that of the previous land due to difficulty in entering the agricultural machinery, and thus, it should be included in each real estate subject to expropriation listed in the attached Table No. 2-2 of the real estate list.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) The part concerning the claim in paragraph (1) above

In calculating a reasonable amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated under the former Land Expropriation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the following should be taken into account in cases where the normal transaction cases or compensation examples of neighboring similar land are not necessarily examined and taken into account. However, in cases where there are precedents where neighboring similar land was transacted or compensation is established and the price is proved to have an impact on the adequate amount of compensation assessment as normal (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu11396, Apr. 8, 1997; 97Nu17711, Jan. 23, 198; 2001Du3808, Feb. 28, 2003, etc.). The normal price of the neighboring similar land is in the neighboring area of the land to be expropriated, and the normal price of the adjacent land is not that of the land to be expropriated but that of the same or similar land (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Nu2969, Feb. 29, 2099).

However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above land and each of the above land of this case were compensated for KRW 133,107 and KRW 142,182 per square meter, as alleged by the plaintiffs. The statement of evidence No. 6 alone is not sufficient to prove that the price of each of the above land can affect the assessment of the compensation amount of each of the above land because the land of this case and each of the above land of this case were the same or similar land in natural and social conditions, such as land category, land register, form, utilization, specific-use area, public law restrictions, etc., and it is difficult to deem that each appraisal agency has proved that the assessment of each of the above land of this case may affect the assessment of the compensation amount of each of the above land of this case. In light of the fact that each appraisal agency takes into account the factors of the price formation, such as the example of appraisal, neighboring tax, regional factors, and individual factors, it cannot be deemed unlawful since each appraisal

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above A. (1) argument is without merit.

(2) The part concerning the claim of the above A. (2)

(A) Facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or as a result of the on-site inspection of Gap evidence 4, 6, 9, and Gap evidence 10-1 through 7, and the result of the on-site inspection by the court of first instance, it is acknowledged that the results of the fact inquiry by the court of first instance as to the witness status of the appraiser status of the appraiser status of the court of first instance comprehensively consider the overall purport of the pleadings. The appraisal of the market price of this court appraiser's appraiser's or appraisal corporation's appraisal to the effect that the price of each remaining land of this case is 20 meters wide by the project of this case, but it cannot be offset against the loss of price reduction by the legal effect of the acceptance itself. Thus, it is not believed that the compensation amount for the remaining land is not calculated in consideration of such benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du6439, Feb. 25, 200).

① Around 1988, the Plaintiff had a 543-2 1,45 m2 m2 in the previous year, and had a 1,445 m2 m2 in the metropolitan waterworks in the Gangnam Dam System, the Plaintiff sold to the Republic of Korea the 126 m26 m2 in the said m2-5 m2, which was at the time of the implementation of the 1988 m2, the land before the instant division, the m243-2 m2, the m25 m2, the m2, the m26 m2 in the attached Table 2-2, the m37-1 m2,316 m2 in the previous m2, the Plaintiff was divided into the land before the instant division, the m2,537 m2,57 m2, and the m2,537 m2,57 m2,75 m2, and the Plaintiff was also divided into the Republic of Korea around 19888.

② Following the implementation of the instant project, the land prior to the first division was divided into the instant land and the first remaining land in the instant case, and the land prior to the second division was divided into the instant land and the second remaining land in the instant case, respectively.

③ Each of the instant lands before subdivision was used to embed rice shed before partial expropriation as the instant project. Even after each of the instant lands was expropriated, each of the instant real estate listed in attached Table 2, which included the remaining land of this case, is still used to embed rice shed.

④ Even if a water supply pipe for each of the instant accommodation lands is laid underground, the embankment installed above is not more than 30cm high, and thus, a rice shed can be set up on the ground of each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2. The access to the agricultural machinery is possible, including the remaining land in this case.

⑤ On the other hand, each of the instant lands before the instant partition had maintained its utility as a whole by making the adequate scale of a bridge, but each of the instant lands was divided into the instant land subject to the implementation of the instant project, and remains remaining at all the remaining parts. The instant land is a triang type, and the width of the instant land remaining in the 2 remaining parts has been reduced.

(6) According to the result of the fact-finding on the appraiser kind of land in this case as of August 24, 200, as of August 24, 2000, due to the difference in individual factors such as the type and height of the remaining land as seen above, the land before the first division of this case is KRW 69,000/m2, and the land before the second division of this case is KRW 73,000/m2, and the remaining land is 69,000/m2, due to the difference in individual factors such as the form and height, etc. of the remaining land as of the second remaining land, but the standard land price of this case is 1,000/m2. However, even if the standard land price of this case is 1, 200, the standard land price of this case is 1,0000/m2, it is again compared with the fact-finding results of the market price appraisal (the standard land price of non-standard land) of each case as of January 1, 1996.

(B) Determination on the part of subsection (a)

(1) First, each real estate listed in the attached Table 2.2., 4., 5. paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be real estate.

The real estate listed in the above (A) 2.2., 4., and 5. of the annexed real estate list 2.2., 5. of the annexed real estate list 1. of the annexed real estate list 2.2., 4., and 5. is the remaining land due to the plaintiffs' consultation sale at around 198 at the time of implementation of the 1-stage wide-area waterworks project of the Gangnam Dam System. The project of this case is a public project separate from the above 1-stage project, etc. of the annexed real estate list 2.2., 4., and 5. The remaining land of each real estate as stated in the above 1-stage project is the execution of the above 1-stage project, and it is not due to the execution of the project of this case. Thus

(2) The remaining land of this case shall be considered as follows:

(A) As indicated in the facts indicated in the above (A), considering the situation, specific use area, and purpose of each remaining land of this case before and after the expropriation of each remaining land of this case, even if the expropriation of each of the instant expropriated land changes the form of each of the instant remaining land due to the expropriation of each of the instant expropriated land, and the fact that the use thereof was somewhat inconvenient, it cannot be deemed that the use of each of the remaining land of this case for the previous purpose is considerably difficult.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above paragraph (1) (2) (A) is without merit.

(C) Determination on the part of subsection (b) above

(1) First, each real estate listed in the attached Table 2.2., 4., 5. paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be real estate.

Article 47 of the Act provides that the compensation for losses shall be made when the price of the remaining land has decreased due to the expropriation or use of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner shall include not only cases where a decrease in the price of the remaining land has occurred due to the partial expropriation or use of the land, but also cases where the form, structure, use, etc. of the facilities to be installed due to the implementation of the project for expropriation or use (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du10315, Dec. 22, 2000). However, if a loss has occurred due to the facilities already installed by the implementation of a separate public project, even if it is a public project related to the project for the purpose of expropriation or use, it shall not be deemed that the remaining land is subject to compensation for losses due to the expropriation or use of the land (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4532, Mar. 9, 201).

In full view of the fact-finding in the above legal principles, each real estate listed in paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (5) of the attached Table 2.2., 4., and 5 of the attached Table 2., the remaining land due to the plaintiffs' consultation sale at around 1988 at the time of implementing the "one-stage project for wide-area waterworks in the Gangnam Dam System" and the project of this case is a public project separate from the above-stage one, etc., damage to the plaintiffs' assertion due to the reduction of the price of the remaining land for each real estate listed in the attached Table 2.2., 4., and 5., since the damage to the plaintiffs' assertion due to the reduction of the price of the remaining land for each of the above-stage one is based on the above-stage one-stage project and it is not directly caused by the expropriation of each of the land of this case

(2) The remaining land of this case shall be considered as follows:

Article 47 of the Act provides for compensation for the remaining land and only reduces the price of the remaining land in addition to the requirement of partial expropriation of a group of land belonging to the same owner. Thus, as long as the price of the remaining land is recognized to have been reduced by partially accepting a group of land, there is no ground to deny compensation for losses even in a case where it is not recognized that the use of the remaining land for its original purpose is considerably difficult, unlike the request for expropriation of the remaining land under Article 48(a) of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4623, May 14, 199).

If it is judged in comparison with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes by comprehensively taking account of the fact that the form, rent, etc. of each remaining land of this case has changed more disadvantageously than before due to the expropriation of each remaining land of this case, and accordingly the unit price of each remaining land of this case has decreased less than before due to the foregoing legal principles, it shall be deemed unlawful to consider losses incurred by the price decline of each remaining land of this case in comparison with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above claim of paragraph (1) (2) (b) is justified only for the compensation for losses due to price decline in the remaining land of this case, and the remainder is without merit.

(3) Justifiable compensation

(A) As seen in the above (2) (c) of this case, the ruling of this case is unlawful because it does not consider losses due to the decline in prices of each remaining land of this case. The appraisal of each expropriated land of this case and the appraisal of each of the expropriated land of this case by each appraisal agency differs from the appraisal result due to the difference between the selection of comparative standard land and the appraisal of the land of this case. In the appraisal of each of the expropriated land of this case, the comparison standard of the appraisal of each of the expropriated land of this case is more similar to the comparison standard of each of the expropriated land of this case, the specific use area, use, land category, form, road traffic and location of each of the expropriated land of this case, and the appraisal result of different appraisal between each of the expropriated land of this case and each of the remaining land of this case cannot be applied, it is reasonable to adopt the fact-finding results as to each of the expropriated land of this case and each of the remaining land of this case.

(B) Furthermore, according to the facts stated in the above (2) (A), the amount of reasonable compensation for losses suffered by the plaintiffs following the expropriation of each land of this case is calculated as follows.

① Plaintiff Lee Jae-sung

The amount of compensation for losses to the land for accommodation No. 1 of this case is 54,285,00 won (77,000 square meters x 705 square meters x 705 square meters) and the amount of compensation for losses to the price decline in the remaining land for the first of this case is 4,560,000 won [570 square meters (7,000 square meters - 69,000 won)]. The reasonable amount of compensation for losses is 58,845,00 won [54,285,000 won + 4,560,000 won + 54,637,500 won which is the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling as stated in the holding of this case], and the amount is more than 4,207,500 won.

② Plaintiff Go Young-young

The amount of compensation for losses to the land for the second expropriation of this case is 56,027,50 won (73,00 won x 1,535 square meters x 1/2), and the amount of losses due to the fall in the price of remaining land for the second expropriation of this case is 5,458,00 won [2,729 square meters (73,000 won - 69,000 won) x 1/2]. The reasonable amount of compensation for losses is 61,485,50 won [56,027,50 won + 5,458,000 won + 56,411,250 won which is the compensation determined in the adjudication of expropriation of the above 1.C., and the amount is more than 56,411,250 won, 5,074,250 won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the rejection of the plaintiff's objection in this case's objection, which corresponds to 4,207,50 won and 5,074,250 won from among the part of the dismissal of the plaintiff's objection's objection by the plaintiff's Domination, is unlawful, the defendant Corporation shall revoke this part. The defendant Corporation shall revoke the plaintiff's objection's claim against the plaintiff's Domination, 4,207,50 won, 5,250 won from October 14, 200, which is the next day of the acceptance time, to which it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the above obligation, and 5% from the date of this decision to February 6, 2004, which is 204, which is 5% of the year under the Civil Act, and 20% of the annual interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc., and the remaining part of the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit.

(1) In the case of consultation under the provisions of Article 25 (1), the appraisal of losses shall be based on the price at the time of consultation for the remaining land to be expropriated or used. (2) The appraisal of the remaining land shall be based on the officially announced price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act for the land to be acquired or expropriated; and (3) The appraisal of the remaining land shall be based on the price at the time of expropriation or use of the remaining land which belongs to the same section of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the purpose of using the remaining land, except for the cases of consultation under the provisions of Article 25 (1). (4) The appraisal of the remaining land shall be based on the price at the time of expropriation or use of the remaining land which belongs to the same section of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the purpose of using the remaining land, at the time of consultation or the determination thereof; and (4) The appraisal of the remaining land shall be based on the price at the time of expropriation or use of the remaining land to the Land Tribunal.