(a) Whether only the land appraiser can conduct the appraisal of the land which is entered the area where the standard land price is publicly announced;

(b) Standards for calculating compensation for losses caused by land expropriation;

A. In a case where the court orders an appraisal of land as deemed necessary to examine a litigation case, even in the case where the standard land price of the land subject to the appraisal is located within the publicly notified area, the land appraiser must be assessed, and the appraisal by the certified appraiser under the Public Appraisal and Appraisal Act shall not be deemed excluded.

(b) In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the reasonable price shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of adjudication of expropriation without considering the approval of a plan, and the price fluctuation due to the announcement, which directly aims at the implementation of

(a) Articles 29 and 29-2(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 46(1) of the Land Expropriation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu415 delivered on January 24, 1984, 82Nu298 delivered on April 10, 1984. Supreme Court Decision 79Nu113 delivered on July 24, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 82Nu402 delivered on September 13, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu160 delivered on June 24, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu126 delivered on September 22, 1987

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

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

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1192 delivered on January 8, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

1. According to Article 29-2(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, a land appraiser shall be appointed to assess the land and other rights to be purchased or expropriated within the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, and the standard land price is to be examined. However, in a case where the court orders an appraisal of land as deemed necessary in examining a litigation case, even if the land subject to the appraisal is located within the publicly notified area, the land appraiser must be assessed and the appraisal by the certified appraiser under the Public Appraisal and Appraisal Act should not be excluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu415, Jan. 24, 1984; 82Nu298, Apr. 10, 1984).

Therefore, the lower court cannot raise the measure adopted as evidence the content of the appraisal of the instant land as evidence. The arguments are groundless.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant assessed the above land as 00 won per 80 won per 10th 5th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 5th 6th 6th 5th 6th 7th 6th 60th 14th 1st 3th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7.

(2) In calculating compensation for losses, the Defendant’s appraisal report of ○○○ and △△△ Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. and the Nonparty’s appraisal report of the lower court admitted as evidence by the lower court should be examined. However, the above two land appraisal Co., Ltd. selected KRW 30,000 per square day before ( Address 1 omitted) and KRW 35,000 per square day ( Address 2 omitted) as reference land price. On the other hand, the Nonparty of the lower court’s appraiser Nonparty selected KRW 35,00 per square day before ( Address 6 omitted) and KRW 225,00 per square day ( Address 7 omitted) as reference land, and △△△△△ Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. selected KRW 25,00 as reference land price for the land in this case, while the land in this case belongs to urban planning, and the land in this case was also excluded from green area, and the Nonparty’s appraisal case was also determined as reference land price for the land in this case without considering the Nonparty’s appraisal case.

However, the standard price for compensation in a region where the standard price is publicly announced pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall be the standard price publicly announced (Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act). The standard price for compensation in a region where the standard price is publicly announced shall be the standard price (Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act). The standard price for reference land selected from among lands which are ordinarily similar to the situation of land utilization, surrounding environment, and other natural and social conditions shall be determined after investigating and assessing the arm's length price (Article 29(3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory). The standard price for reference land which is to be expropriated shall be determined by dividing it into five categories (Article 48(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory) and five categories (Article 48(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall not be determined based on the standard price for reference to 197 percent of the price for reference land.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the evaluation of the two joint offices by the appraiser in light of the above appraiser's appraisal result shall not be exempted from criticism that there is any potential substance affecting the judgment by violating the rules of evidence in calculating the land price of the land of this case.

This paper is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)