(a) The case holding that, although two reference land are listed in the land appraiser’s appraisal report, appraisal is deemed adequate in light of the purpose and location of the land subject to appraisal, since the reference land for each land subject to appraisal is known;

(b) Whether the appraisal of an indemnity for the expropriated land is appropriate without clarifying the transaction cases of similar neighboring land, taking into account only the asking price of neighboring land (negative)

(c) Appropriateness of appraisal which does not specify the factors of appraisal when evaluating the amount of compensation for land to be expropriated differently from the standard land price of reference land (negative);

A. In the event that land is expropriated in an area subject to the public announcement of the standard land price under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the standard land price shall be determined on the basis of the standard land price. The standard land price shall be determined on the basis of the standard land price. However, the standard land price for the land subject to compensation shall be determined on the basis of the standard land price. Since two or more standard land prices are set in advance according to the grade by land category in the relevant area, and only one standard land with regard to the land subject to compensation and land category and grade are selected, if two or more standard land prices are listed in the land appraiser’s appraisal report and it is impossible to determine which land is the standard land price for the land subject to compensation, such appraisal cannot be deemed a legitimate assessment because it is difficult to calculate the amount of compensation for the land subject to compensation. However, if it can be easily seen that the purpose of the appraisal is to select a land whose purpose and location are similar to that of the land subject to compensation among two standard land prices, the above appraisal cannot

B. According to the provisions of Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the assessment of the amount of compensation based on the standard land price should take into account the normal transaction price of similar neighboring land. Thus, the mere consideration of the price of neighboring land is illegal without clarifying whether there are transaction cases of similar neighboring land.

C. Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price for the land to be expropriated, but the compensation price for the land to be compensated based on the standard land price shall be reasonable in consideration of the price calculation factors as stipulated in Article 29 (5) of the Act, such as the rate of land price fluctuation from the date of the original standard land price public notice from the date of the public notice of the target land price to the date of the determination of the compensation amount, and the region and individual factors of the standard land price. The land appraisal company's assessment report clearly state the above evaluation factors in detail, so it is necessary to objectively recognize that the compensation amount has been properly calculated without specifying them. The compensation price of the land should be determined differently from the standard land price for the standard land, and if it is difficult to determine the specific land price by considering the location, form, land size, size, surrounding environment, street condition, use area, neighboring market price, adjacent standard price, etc.

A.B. Article 29(5)(c) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989)

A. (C) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5488,88Nu6894 delivered on May 23, 1989 (Gong1990,404). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8019 delivered on May 8, 1990

organic wind and one other, Plaintiffs Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Defendant 1 and Defendant Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu10611 Decided July 11, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below ordered the cancellation of the judgment of the defendant's objection based on the judgment that the defendant violated the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act and the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which require that the standard price should be the basis for calculating the amount of compensation in the case of the objection of this case, and that the defendant violated the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act and the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which require that the standard price should be the basis for calculating the amount of compensation, and that the defendant violated the provisions of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the Land Expropriation and the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory.

2. In the event that land is expropriated within the area subject to the public announcement of the standard land price based on the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the standard land price shall be assessed on the basis of the standard land price, while the standard land price shall be assessed on the basis of the standard land price, and the standard land price for the land subject to compensation shall be selected only on the basis of the land subject to compensation, land category, and grade in the relevant area. As such, if two or more standard land prices are listed in the land appraisal report, and if it is impossible to determine which land is the standard land price for the land subject to compensation, it shall be difficult to deem the compensation price for the land subject to compensation as lawful.

However, according to the records, all of the assessment statements (No. 2-1, No. 2-1, No. 2-1, No. 124-1, 124-1, which are the basis for the judgment of the objection of this case, set forth the same site as the reference land in Seongbuk-dong 97-28 site as the reference land, and do not specify whichever of them is the reference land for the land of this case. However, in light of the land of this case and each use (whether it is a building site or a residential building site in parallel with residence) and location (whether it is a location or a location adjacent to the middle or small) of the 102-1 site in Seongbuk-dong 102-1, the above assessment statements can be easily seen as the reference land of this case among the above reference land and its use and location similar to that of the land of this case, and the remaining reference land of this case as the reference land of this case, and the purport of selecting the reference land of this case as the reference land of this case.

The court below's determination that each of the above evaluations was unlawful solely on the ground that no land is the reference land for the land of this case without further reviewing the above circumstances. It cannot be said that the above evaluation was erroneous.

3. However, according to the provisions of Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the assessment of the amount of compensation based on the standard land price is to take into account the normal transaction price of nearby similar land. Thus, it is illegal to take into account only the price of neighboring land without specifying whether there is a transaction case of neighboring land and simply considering the price of neighboring land without clarifying whether there is a transaction case. Thus, when examining each assessment report in the joint office preparation of each of the above land appraisal companies, it is illegal to take into account only the price of neighboring land without stating only the price of neighboring land at the neighboring city or the neighboring market price at the nearby city and the neighboring market price at the same time, and without stating all the transaction cases of similar neighboring land at the same time, it is difficult to deem that only the price of neighboring land

In this respect, the judgment of the court below that the evaluation of the joint office of each land appraiser is unlawful is justified.

4. In addition, Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be based on the standard land price of the reference land in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated pursuant to each provision of Article 49 of the same Act, but it shall be objectively recognized that the compensation price of the land subject to compensation based on the standard land price has been adequate by clearly specifying each of the above evaluation factors in the land appraiser's statement (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5488 delivered on May 23, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3505 delivered on December 26, 1989).

However, according to each appraisal report on the preparation of the above land appraiser's joint office, the standard price of reference land shall be 30,000 won per square meter, and the compensation price of reference land of this case shall be 430,000 won per square meter per square meter different from the standard price of reference land. "It shall be determined in consideration of the location, form, land size, size, utilization situation, surrounding environment, street conditions, use area, surrounding city taxes, standard price, land price, etc. of this case" (joint office of the fixed land appraiser), or "each location condition of land, land situation, neighboring market price, and price of reference land shall be determined in consideration of the price fluctuation rate, etc." (the two joint office of the fixed land appraiser), and since it shall not be determined in detail to compare the above standard price of reference land with the regional and individual factors of the land of this case, it shall be difficult to recognize the appropriateness of the appraisal as above.

The judgment of the court below on this point is justified in its conclusion that although the reasoning of the judgment below on this point did not seem to be insufficient, it did not properly consider the factors of assessment price determination by each land appraiser's joint office.

5. Ultimately, the court below's revocation of the defendant's objection of this case, which calculated the compensation amount based on the appraisal of the joint office of each land appraiser, was just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit, and thus dismissed the appeal and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)