(a) The case holding that it is appropriate to take into account the increase rate of wholesale prices, which is considerably low in assessing the amount of compensation for the land for expropriation within the area where the standard price is publicly announced;

(b) Whether the appraisal of compensation is appropriate for taking into account only the standard of land price in the case of a prior appraisal of compensation and a nearby area and the normal transaction price of similar neighboring land (negative);

(c) Specific elements of local and individual factors in evaluating the amount of compensation by comparing the land to be expropriated with the reference land (affirmative);

A. The rate of land price fluctuations to be considered in the appraisal of the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated within the area where the standard price is publicly notified is 2.9%, while the increase rate of wholesale prices is 1.6%, if the increase rate of wholesale prices is considerably low compared to the rate of land price fluctuations, and thus it is not likely to bring about the result of the appraisal of the amount of compensation which is less than the amount of the adjudication, it shall not be attributable to the reason that the appraisal by the joint office of the land appraisal company, which is not considered, is inappropriate.

B. In determining the amount of compensation due to land expropriation, where there is a transaction example of a neighboring similar land, it is not clear whether there is such transaction example, but does not consider the normal transaction price of neighboring similar land. However, the appraisal of compensation by the joint office of a land appraiser, which takes into account only the compensation example and the land price level in neighboring areas, lacks adequacy.

(c) In assessing the amount of compensation by comparing the reference land with the land to be expropriated, it is necessary to objectively recognize that the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated based on the reference land has been calculated appropriately by specifying specifically as to the regional and individual factors which are the basis of comparison, even if it is not necessary to specify daily parts as to the detailed factors, so as to make it possible to compare the difference between each land.

Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989)

Kim-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Han-he

Attorney Park Jong-yang et al., Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu8656 delivered on October 10, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the standard land price should be based on the amount of compensation in a case where the land is expropriated in an area where the standard land price is publicly announced pursuant to Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and the standard land price should be determined from the date of the public notice of compensation until the date of the determination of compensation amount, and although the standard land price should be taken into account the land use plan, the rate of land price fluctuation, wholesale price increase rate, the normal market price and other matters of neighboring land unrelated to the pertinent area, the joint land appraisal company of Korea and the new land appraisal company of Korea, which formed the basis of the defendant's judgment, did not show any streging with the increase rate of wholesale price, and the normal market price of neighboring land was not considered, and the above office's normal market price of similar land was not considered, and the new land appraisal company's new land appraisal company's consideration of transaction cases and efficacy is not considered.

2. First of all, according to the appraisal results in the court below's appraisal rules adopted by the court below, the change rate of land price to be considered in the appraisal of the compensation amount for the land of this case is 2.9%, while the increase rate of wholesale prices is 1.6%. As such, the increase rate of wholesale prices is considerably low compared to the increase rate of land price, and thus the impact on the appraisal of land compensation amount is not only a significant low rate, but it cannot be caused by the appraisal of the joint office of each land appraiser, on the ground that such consideration is not considered if it can bring about the result of the assessment of the compensation amount less than the adjudication amount. Thus, the court below's determination that the above increase rate of wholesale price of each land appraiser did not take into account the above increase rate of the compensation amount of each land appraiser's joint office without examining the above evidence is erroneous.

3. However, when examining each entry in the evidence Nos. 7,8 (each appraisal report) signed by the court below, a joint land appraisal company in the above-mentioned land appraisal company does not consider the normal market price of similar neighboring land, but takes into account the recent compensation example and the price level of neighboring land only. According to the appraisal report by the above new joint land appraisal company, since it is recognized that there are transaction cases of similar neighboring land such as 370-2, etc., the appraisal of the above land appraisal company's joint land appraisal company's joint land appraisal company, which did not specify the transaction cases of neighboring similar land and did not consider the normal market price, has failed to meet the adequacy in this respect.

However, in the instant judgment on objection, since the assessed value of the said joint office of land appraisal company and the average value of the assessed value of the new joint office of land appraisal company is calculated as the amount of compensation, the illegality of the evaluation of the said joint office of land appraisal company cannot be deemed to have affected the decision of compensation amount of the defendant.

4. In addition, according to the above documentary evidence, the Korea Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. stated the appraised value by comparing and comparing the standard land with the regional factors and individual factors of the land of this case, and the new land Appraisal Co., Ltd.'s new land Appraisal Co., Ltd. stated that the land of this case is at least 25% but not more than 30% and more than the standard land and the land of this case compared with the standard land, but any of them does not specify the specific factors of the local factors and individual factors. As to the regional factors and individual factors which are the basis for comparing the standard land with the land of this case, even if it is not necessary to specify the detailed daily factors, it should be objectively recognized that the assessment of the compensation amount of the land of this case based on the standard land was properly conducted by specifying the specific amount to the extent that the difference between each land can be compared.

The comparison of regional and individual factors of each of the above joint offices of land appraisers is without specifying the specific contents, so it is impossible to identify whether the assessment of compensation amount of the pertinent land based on reference land was properly made. Therefore, each assessment cannot be recognized as appropriate.

5. Ultimately, the lower court’s conclusion that the assessment of the amount of compensation for each of the instant lands by the joint offices of land appraisers is justifiable, and the conclusion of the lower judgment is justifiable, and even if the appraisal by the appraiser of the lower court was erroneous, the conclusion of the lower judgment is not affected by the conclusion of

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.

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