Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Si-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Apex, Attorneys Oi-si et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 17, 2010

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Guhap9639 Decided September 9, 2009

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 191,959,650 with 5% per annum from February 9, 2008 to September 9, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of ruling;

o Project Approval and Notice

- Advanced Urban Planning Road: <1-1>

- Notification No. 2006-359 of 26 December 2006

o Project operator: Korea Land Corporation (Defendant was established on October 1, 2009 by Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Act No. 9706 of May 22, 2009) and comprehensively succeeded to the property, claims, obligations, and other rights and obligations of Korea Land and Housing Corporation pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Addenda to the same Act).

o The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on December 20, 2007 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”).

- Commencement date of expropriation: February 7, 2008

- Land to be expropriated: The land of this case is the land of this case, which is the land of this case, 4,793 square meters per 4,793 square meters per ri-ri (number 1 omitted) (hereinafter “instant land”). The land of this case is divided into 1,755 square meters per ri-ri (number 1 omitted) and 3,038 square meters per 4,038 square meters per ri-ri (number 2 omitted) at the Plaintiff’s request on May 22, 2007, and the land (number 2 omitted) was combined with the land (number 1 omitted; hereinafter “land before the instant annexation”).

- Compensation for expropriation: 617,578,050 won

o Adjudgment on July 17, 2008 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee: Dismissal of an objection

o According to the result of the commission of appraisal to the Nonparty by the court of first instance on December 20, 2007, the amount of compensation calculated on the basis of the land prior to the annexation is KRW 640,928,700, and the amount of compensation calculated on the basis of the merger is KRW 809,537,700 (hereinafter “the result of appraisal by the court of first instance”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, the result of the appraisal commission to the non-party of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The land prior to the annexation of this case was merged before the date of adjudication of expropriation, and became the land of this case on one parcel, and furthermore, in an indivisible relationship for usage, it should be assessed as a group of land.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The land before the annexation of this case is difficult to be regarded as a group of land. In addition, with respect to the land which was commenced or reported for alteration under paragraphs (1) and (3) of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 8435, May 17, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) as an improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a person other than a project operator cannot file an application for land alteration until the project is completed. However, in violation of the above provision of the Cadastral Act on May 22, 2007, the Plaintiff merged the land before the annexation of this case with the land in this case in violation of the above provision of the Cadastral Act, so

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) Whether the instant land should be evaluated as a combined state

Article 70(2) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) provides for the principle that the amount of compensation for the land acquired through consultation or adjudication shall be calculated by considering the actual situation at the time of the price and the objective situation by the general method of use, but the assessment of the amount of compensation for the land shall be based on the time of the price by prescribing not to take into account the temporary use or subjective value of the landowner, etc., but the amount of compensation shall be calculated at a reasonable price

Meanwhile, according to Articles 26 and 27 of the former Cadastral Act, a project implementer for urban development projects, rural development projects, and other land development projects prescribed by Presidential Decree shall report to the competent authority the commencement, alteration, or completion of the project under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and when there is a land alteration due to the project, the project implementer shall file an application with the competent authority for the said alteration, and as regards the land for which the commencement or alteration of the project is reported, a person other than the project implementer shall not file an application for the alteration

In this case, on May 2, 2007, the Plaintiff’s announcement of the project approval was as seen earlier, the fact that the land was combined with the land in this case prior to the instant merger after May 22, 2007. Therefore, such an act may be deemed as violating the above provisions of the Cadastral Act. However, even if the Plaintiff applied for land alteration in violation of the above Cadastral Act, such circumstance alone does not have any legal ground to believe that the price of the instant land should be evaluated based on the status prior to the annexation. Thus, the land in this case should be assessed based on the status as at the time of the date of expropriation decision in accordance with the principle of calculating compensation (Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act is Article 24 of the Building Act without permission or reporting under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, or the land, the alteration of the form and quality of which was altered without permission or reporting under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, if the value of the land was increased by applying the above provision to this case).

(2) Justifiable compensation

As seen earlier, the land of this case should be assessed in the combined state, and the purport of the entire argument as to the appraisal result of Eul evidence 6-1 and Eul evidence 6-2, and the appraisal result of the first instance trial added to the purport of the entire argument, it can be acknowledged that the market price is assessed by calculating the gap rate somewhat different only in comparison of individual factors, and it does not seem that any illegality exists in relation to the selection of comparative standard sites or materiallimbation, etc. As such, the court shall adopt the appraisal result of the first instance court, which appears to reflect more concrete and appropriate reflects the present situation of the land of this case, and calculate compensation by adopting the appraisal result of the first instance court.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 191,959,650 won (=809,537,700 won - 617,578,050 won) which is the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation due to the result of the appraisal in the first instance and the amount of compensation for losses as stipulated in the adjudication of acceptance in the instant case, and as the plaintiff seeks, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 9, 2008 to September 9, 2009, which is the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Park Poe-dae (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-hoon