(a) Whether measures for calculating compensation amount are appropriate by employing only a part of the appraisal by the appraiser;

(b) Whether the compensation example is taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated;

A. An appraisal is nothing more than using such knowledge and experience as a means to assist the appraisal in determining a particular matter, if the court requires special knowledge and experience. Therefore, even if the court acknowledged facts based on only a part of the appraisal result of the appraiser, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless it violates logical and empirical rules. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the amount of compensation for neighboring land without employing a part of the appraisal by the appraiser as to the rate of compensation for neighboring land.

B. Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989) and relevant provisions of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc., such as the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 191) and the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. do not regard the compensation preference as one of the factors for price calculation, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the evaluation of the compensation preference is unlawful merely because it is not taken into account as one of the factors for price calculation. However, it is reasonable to take this into account in such a case as

A. Article 187(b) of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991); Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2626 delivered on January 19, 198 (Gong1988,407) (Gong1988,654 delivered on March 8, 198) 87Meu1354 delivered on November 14, 1989 (Gong1990,22) B. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8562 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192,308)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

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

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu18455 delivered on June 3, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. If the court's appraisal requires special knowledge and experience in determining certain matters, it is nothing more than using such knowledge and experience as a means to assist the appraiser's appraisal. Thus, even if the court acknowledged facts based on only a part of the appraisal result, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless it violates the logical and empirical rules. In comparison with the judgment below's records, the court below's measure of calculating the compensation amount of the land in this case without employing part of the appraisal of Nonparty 1 as to the calculation of compensation amount of the land in this case's appraisal of Nonparty 1, who calculated the compensation amount of the land in this case according to the remaining parts, shall be justified, and it shall not be deemed that there is an error of law such as the theory of lawsuit, by taking such measures

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. In calculating the amount of compensation for a land to be expropriated under Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989) or relevant provisions of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (hereinafter “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991), it cannot be readily concluded that the appraisal is unlawful on the ground that the compensation example does not refer to the similar land as one of the factors for pricing the price. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider it in such a case as the compensation example is related to the similar land, and it can be an important material for assessing the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the compensation example cited by the non-party 1 as the fair compensation price for the land of this case, on the ground that the compensation example, which the non-party 1 cited by the appraiser of the court below, did not have any material supporting the existence thereof, and that the price at the time of price change is one year more than the ruling of expropriation of this case, and it cannot be determined that the price of neighboring land was appropriately reflected at the time of the ruling of expropriation of this case, even if the land price change was made at the rate of time, and that the compensation price for the answer to the non-party 2 of the defendant Korea Land Development Corporation to the non-party 2 of this case cannot be deemed as including development gains from the approval of the housing site development plan of this case. In comparison with the records of the judgment of the court below, the above measures of the court below are just and there is no violation of law

Therefore, all appeals are 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.