(a) The appraisal method to calculate the amount of compensation for the land expropriated within the area where the standard land prices are publicly notified;

B. Whether the administrative litigation under Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231, Apr. 7, 1990) concerning an increase or decrease in compensation filed by the landowner or interested person pursuant to Article 75-2(2) is a necessary co-litigants whose co-litigants are co-defendants other than the ruling authority (affirmative)

D. Whether the provision of Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act under the above Paragraph (c) applies to the lawsuit under paragraph (1) pending in the court at the time of the enforcement of the new law (affirmative)

A. Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989) and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree thereof stipulate various matters to be taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation for the land within the area where the standard land price is publicly notified. Accordingly, in conducting an appraisal based on the appraisal, the amount of reasonable price should be calculated by reflecting all the matters prescribed in this context. The appraisal should specify the important matters that constitute the price-fixing factors in detail and explain to the extent that the appraisal could be obtained by reflecting all the matters that constitute the price-fixing factors.

B. In the event that the appraisal of the expropriated land does not follow the above "A" method, it cannot be said that the court did not urge the appraisal of the expropriated land to prove the existence of the appraisal in accordance with any of the above criteria and methods or order the appraisal of the expropriated land.

C. In the case of an administrative litigation under Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 190), the provision that a business owner or interested person shall be the defendant in addition to the ruling authority in the case of an administrative litigation under Article 75-2 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990) means that a business owner or interested person shall be

D. Since Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act does not provide for the exclusion of the application of the new law to the cases pending at the time of the enforcement of the amended law in the Addenda to the Land Expropriation Act ( April 7, 1990), the above provision of Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act applies to the lawsuit under paragraph(1) which is pending in the court at the

A.B. Article 42(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990), Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989). Articles 8 and 15 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 126 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 75-2(1) and (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, and Article 75-2(1) of the Addenda of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2437 decided Sep. 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2183) 89Nu5461 decided Oct. 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 2282) decided Feb. 12, 1991 (Gong191, 989)

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

The Central Land Tribunal and one other, the defendants' attorney Gangwon-gu et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu1528 delivered on September 25, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the revocation of an objection

원심이 확정한 사실에 의하면, 피고 중앙토지수용위원회(이하 피고위원회라고 한다)는 기준지가 고시지역인 이 사건 토지 7필지에 대하여 개정 전의 토지수용법 제42조 제1항 제2호(1990.4.7. 법률 제4231호로 개정되기 전의 것) 의 규정에 따라 ○○감정평가합동사무소(이하 ○○감정이라고 한다)와 △△토지평가사합동사무소(이하 △△감정이라고 한다)에 구 국토이용관리법 제29조 제5항(1989.4.1. 법률 제4120호로 삭제되기 전의 것) 에 따른 평가감정을 의뢰하였는데, ○○감정은 이 사건 토지를 포함한 51여필의 토지에 대한 보상액을 함께 평가하면서 이에 대한 표준지로 10필의 토지를 열거한 다음 지가변동율, 도매물가상승율만을 적시하고 나머지 가격산정 요인들은 막연히 이를 참작한다고만 하여 구체적인 산출과정의 설시도 없이 보상액을 산출하였고, △△감정은 이 사건 토지의 가격은 위치, 환경, 지형, 지세, 규모, 현황, 성숙도 및 기타 제반가격 형성요인과 기준지가, 지가변동율, 도매물가상승율, 인근지의 개발 등 제반 기타 상승요인과 인근지의 시세 등을 고려하여 평가하였다고 하면서도 그와 같은 사항들을 어떠한 방법으로 어느 정도 반영하였는지에 관한 구체적인 설명이나 기준의 제시도 없고, 기준지가에 지가변동율, 기타 상승율을 참작한다고 하면서도 기타 상승율의 근거가 무엇인지 밝히지 않고 있으며, 각 토지의 개별요인을 막연히 정한 후 감정평가를 하였다는 것인바, 사실이 그러하다면 ○○감정의 평가는 위 국토이용관리법에서 요구하고 있는 여러 참작사유를 고려하고 인근 유사토지의 정상거래가격을 참작하여 평가하였는지 분명하지 아니하고, △△감정은 인근 유사토지의 정상거래가격을 참작하였는지 알 수 없고, 이 사건 토지에 관하여 필지별로 표준지와 대비한 개별요인분석이 어떻게 나와 이를 적용하였는지 알 수 없어 적법한 평가라고 하기 어렵다는 원심판단은 정당하다고 할 것이다.

Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree thereof stipulate various matters to be taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land within the area in which the standard land price is publicly notified. Accordingly, in conducting the appraisal, the amount of the reasonable price should be calculated by reflecting all the matters prescribed in this context. The appraisal shall specify the important matters which form the price-fixing factors in detail, and explain to the extent that it can be understood that the appraisal was made by reflecting all various matters which form the price-fixing factors, and the appraisal which is not objectively recognized that it was properly performed.

In such a case, it cannot be said that there is no reason to argue that the court has been urged to prove that the appraisal was conducted on the basis of any criteria and method, or has not urged to attend the appraisal.

For the portion ordering the payment of compensation

In a case where an administrative litigation instituted pursuant to Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990), which intends to be instituted pursuant to paragraph (1) of this Article, is an action related to increase or decrease of compensation, the provision that if the person who files the lawsuit is a landowner or a person concerned, the person who files the lawsuit shall be the defendant in addition to the ruling authority shall be the co-defendant in addition to the ruling authority in a case where the lawsuit is brought such as above,

In addition, since Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act does not provide for the exclusion of the application of the new law to the pending case at the time of the enforcement of the new law, the provisions of Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act shall also apply to the lawsuit under paragraph (1) of the same Article which is pending in the court at the time of the enforcement of the new law, and it cannot be said that paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "if an administrative litigation which is to be instituted under paragraph (1) is a lawsuit for an increase or decrease of compensation, the administrative litigation which is to be instituted under paragraph (1) is to be applied only to the case which is pending at

In addition, in light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the amount of compensation for the land of this case assessed by the non-party appraiser as the reasonable amount of compensation is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit or incomplete hearing. Therefore, there is no reason for this issue.

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 on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)