[1] The case holding that in a case where one parcel of land is a parcel of land where both parties have physical continuity, and there is no particular difference in the actual use status as a miscellaneous land which has been left alone for a long time, the entire parcel of land constitutes "one parcel of land under Article 47 of the Land Expropriation Act, which is the object of compensation for losses of the remaining parcel of land

[2] The method and criteria for calculating the amount of compensation for the decrease in the remaining land price

[1] The case holding that in a case where one parcel of land is a parcel of land where the expropriation part is far more than the remaining part in the land condition or environmental condition, but the two are physically continuity, and there is no particular difference in the actual use status as a miscellaneous land where all the land is left unattended for a long time, it shall be all the land that was provided for the same purpose as at the time of the decision for expropriation based on the objective status or use status at the time of the decision for expropriation, and thus, it shall be deemed that the whole land is a parcel of land subject to compensation for losses under Article 47 of the Land Expropriation Act

[2] Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 4 (4) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses applicable mutatis mutandis to the methods and criteria for calculating the amount of compensation for the decrease in the price of remaining land due to the expropriation of land under Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 26 (2) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses applicable mutatis mutandis to the methods of calculating the amount of compensation for the decrease in the price of remaining land due to the expropriation of land, "the assessment of the amount of losses where the price of remaining land is reduced due to the incorporation of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner into a public project site shall be calculated by subtracting the appraised value of remaining land converted from the price of the land to be incorporated into a public project site." This is interpreted to mean

[1] Article 47 of the Land Expropriation Act / [2] Articles 47 and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(4) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Loss, Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the

[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13948 delivered on April 24, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4623 delivered on May 14, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 1173)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Jin-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Law Office, Law Office, Attorney Lee Yong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu2086 delivered on January 21, 2000

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal (the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the period is within the scope of supplement)

A. The court below held that Defendant 2 had the remaining area of 1,451 square meters in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), 70 square meters in order to implement the construction of the Highway 40, 70 square meters in 70, 70 square meters in 70 square meters in 25 meters in 62 square meters in 9. The court below rejected the remaining area of 90 square meters in 97 square meters in 70, 700 square meters in 20, 700 square meters in 9, 700 square meters in 9, 70 square meters in 193, and 90 square meters in 20, 700 square meters in 9 square meters in 9. The court below held that the remaining area of 90 square meters in 70 square meters in 20,000 won in 70 square meters in 97, 200, 700 square meters in 20,000 won in 20.

B. According to the records, the entire land of this case consists of approximately 45 degrees slopes in the middle at the time of the ruling on expropriation of this case consisting of the above part of the land to be expropriated and the remaining part below the end of this case, which is about 7 to 8 meters. However, while the former part of the land to be expropriated seems to be negative and flat, the latter part of the land belonging to the above slope is connected with the land of 4 meters wide, and only the lower part of the land below the above part of the land is connected with the river width of 4 meters. Thus, since the land of this case was located at the time of the ruling on expropriation of this case, it is reasonable to view that the entire land of this case to be expropriated in its physical condition such as the land of this case, such as the surface, form, and low elevation, or the land of this case, which was located at the time of the ruling on expropriation of this case, as the whole land of this case, the entire land of this case is deemed to have a different physical condition from the entire land of this case at the time of expropriation of this case.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the entire land of this case constitutes a group of land subject to compensation for losses, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a group of land as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. Article 47 of the Land Expropriation Act provides for the compensation for losses of the remaining land and provides for the reduction of the price of the remaining land in addition to the requirement of partial expropriation of a group of land belonging to the same owner. Thus, insofar as it is recognized that the price of the remaining land has been reduced by partially accepting the land, unlike the claim for expropriation of the remaining land under Article 48 of the same Act, there is no ground to deny the claim for compensation for losses even in cases where the use of the remaining land for its original purpose is not clearly difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4623, May 14, 199

According to the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below on the price reduction of the remaining land of this case is just, and even if there is no particular difficulty in using the remaining land of this case for its original purpose as stated in the judgment below, there is no obstacle to the price reduction due to the expropriation of this case and the recognition of compensation for its loss. Thus, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on compensation for the remaining land of this case under the Land Expropriation Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The precedents

D. Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 4(4) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses applicable mutatis mutandis to the method and criteria for calculating the amount of compensation for the decrease in the price of remaining land due to the expropriation of land under the provisions of Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 26(2) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses applicable mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the amount of compensation for the decrease in the price of remaining land due to the expropriation of land, "the assessment of losses where the price of remaining land has decreased due to the incorporation of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner into a public project site shall be calculated by subtracting the appraised value of remaining land converted from the price of the land to be incorporated into a public project site." This is interpreted to mean that once the whole land is incorporated into a public project site, the amount obtained by subtracting the appraised value of the remaining land from the appraised value of the remaining land due to

Therefore, the price at the time of the ruling on expropriation of the remaining land of this case, which is the basis for calculating the decrease in the price of the remaining land of this case, shall be assessed by presenting the case where the entire land of this case is expropriated, and in detail, the unit price per area at the time of the ruling on expropriation of the entire land of this case shall be calculated by multiplying the unit price per area at the time of the ruling on expropriation of the entire land of this case by the size of the remaining land of this case. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below, which assessed the unit price per square meter at the time of the ruling on expropriation of the entire land of this case, as 704,200 won, employs the appraisal result of Nonparty 2 of the court below, which assessed the unit price per square meter at the time of the ruling on expropriation of the remaining

However, according to the records, without directly appraising the unit price per square meter at the time of the decision to expropriate the entire land of this case, the above appraiser 2 assessed the unit price per square meter as KRW 704,200 by using the appraisal result of other appraiser 1 as it is. The above appraiser 1 did not evaluate the unit price per square meter at the time of the decision to expropriate the entire land of this case. The above appraiser 1 assessed the unit price per square meter at the time of the decision to expropriate the land of this case as KRW 704,200 (the above appraiser 1 appraised only the compensation amount for the land of this case, and submitted the appraisal opinion as to the decrease in the price of the remaining land of this case). Thus, since the above appraiser 2 assessed the unit price of the whole land of this case as the whole land of this case as the target of the entire land of this case, the whole land of this case is not subject to the appraisal price of this case as well as only the land of this case which is part of this case, and the appraisal price of this case can not be seen as the result.

Nevertheless, the lower court calculated the price at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the remaining land of this case by multiplying the unit price per square meter assessed by Nonparty 2 by the area of the remaining land of this case, and calculated the price decrease in the remaining land of this case based on this. It is clear that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the remaining land price decrease, or failing to exhaust all deliberations thereon, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendants’ ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

The court below held that the issue of whether the construction of roads is necessary due to the expropriation of this case shall be determined based on the objective situation according to the general usage method at the time of the decision to expropriate the remaining land of this case. In light of the facts acknowledged in its reasoning, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim to open the road of this case on the ground that the remaining land of this case cannot be considered in judging the necessity to open the road of this case on the ground that the use of the road of this case as miscellaneous land is possible according to the previous usage method, regardless of the expropriation of this case, since the remaining land of this case is adjacent to the road of 4 meters in width after expropriation as well as the previous expropriation, it is not necessary to build the road of this case on the ground that it is possible to use it as miscellaneous land according to the previous usage method.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and relevant statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The plaintiffs' ground of appeal is

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiffs’ appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)