(a) Method of calculating the amount of compensation for the land expropriated within the area where the standard land prices are publicly notified;

B. The burden of proving that the compensation amount under the preceding paragraph is an adequate value and the method of proving it.

(a)In calculating the amount of compensation for the land within the area where the standard price has been publicly announced, the reasonable price shall be determined, in full view of the factors, reflecting all the factors in the calculation of the price after the date of the public announcement of the target area in detail and in full, by selecting one reference land whose category and grade are the same from among many reference land determined in advance by the grade of land category for the land to be expropriated in that area;

B. The fact that the amount of compensation under the preceding paragraph is an adequate value must be proved by the disposition of disposition of expropriation, which asserts that the amount of compensation is reasonable, and in order to make the amount of compensation appropriate, it shall be proved that the disposition of disposition is legitimate by specifying, specifying and specifying the standard land and the factors for calculation of compensation for the land to be expropriated, and that the result of evaluation (i.e., compensation amount) may vary according to the criteria and methods for evaluation. Therefore, it shall be proved that the choice of the principle of appraisal of compensation is legitimate by specifying by any method

A.B. Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 29(3) and 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 48(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989); Article 49(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu514 delivered on May 9, 1989 (Gong1989,911) b. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5488 delivered on May 23, 1989

Attorney Choi Byung-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney of the Central Land Tribunal or his/her legal representative

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu788 delivered on June 12, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

According to the provisions of Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989), compensation amount for expropriation of the land within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced shall be based on the land price publicly announced; the standard land price shall be determined based on the rate of change of land prices of neighboring land unrelated to the area or increase of wholesale prices, price of neighboring similar land, and other factors; the standard land price shall be determined based on the method of appraisal and determination of the standard land price per unit of the reference land which shall be determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and shall be determined based on the method of appraisal and determination of the standard land price per unit of the reference land.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the above land was designated as an industrial area on April 14, 1970, and that the standard price was located within the area publicly notified on August 21, 1978. The defendant, while making the ruling of this case, requested an appraisal of compensation to the new and Hanyang Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. as a reference price applicable to the land in this case, the above two appraisal offices were not based on the appraisal rate of 281, 373-5, 416-1, 438-1, 45-1, 45-2, 45-2, 458-2, and 318-2, 318-2, 47-1, 38-2, 37, 47-1, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 1, 1977.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)