Where the higher adjustment of the officially announced land price is permitted;

In other words, in a case where it is deemed that the price of the land to be expropriated was determined as the expropriation project district due to the designation of the land price as the expropriation project district due to the designation of the land price as the expropriation project district, the amendment is allowed, and the amendment rate is not different from the price fluctuation rate or the publicly announced land price inflation rate of neighboring land, but only the natural land price inflation rate, which excluded the development gains, should be reflected, instead of the difference between the land price fluctuation rate or the publicly announced land price inflation rate of neighboring land.

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Ahn Young-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu7691 delivered on September 17, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

The court below held that even if the building and warehouse of the plaintiff's argument were above the land to be expropriated for domestic work, in light of the form of the building and the current use of the surrounding land, the part of the land in this case is used as the temporary site for the public use of the building or warehouse site for the reason that the use of the land in this case is merely a temporary and temporary use under Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Use and Compensation for Loss (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13649 of May 22, 192) and Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act, not a temporary and temporary use, it should be evaluated as a site for the original purpose. The above recognition and decision of the court below are just and they are not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of

2. We examine the Defendants’ attorney’s grounds of appeal.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 191); Article 44 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 4 and Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; and Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act as a whole, since the existing standard land and its officially announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation are effective on the basis of the basic date at the time of the ruling of expropriation, if the new standard land and its officially announced publicly at the time of the ruling of expropriation, as well as the previous standard land were added to the new standard land and its officially announced publicly at the time of the ruling of expropriation, and if the basic date were to be announced prior to the date of the ruling of expropriation, it shall be reasonable to select the new standard land and its officially announced price as an amount appraised on the basis of the newly announced standard land and its officially announced price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu14, May 190, 194.

B. On the second ground for appeal

(1) According to the appraisal report of the Nonparty on the land to be expropriated in this case, the lower court calculated 1.2 times the amount of the compensation by calculating 1.2 times the amount of the compensation, which is the basis for calculating the amount of the compensation for the land to be expropriated in this case, and multiplying the amount calculated on the basis of the officially announced land price. In light of the above process of calculating the corrected rate of other matters, the lower court, first of all, sold 363,00 won per 1.18 p.m. on December 30, 1990 for example, compared to the standard land price, there is a difference of 1.18 p.m. from the officially announced land price when comparing it with the standard land price, and there is a difference of 1.34 times the amount of the standard land to be purchased in 470,000 won per m. on December 19, 190 and, furthermore, there is a need to raise the rate of 1.34 times the average rate of 1.2 times the officially announced land price per 198.197 p.m.

(2) As to the consideration of the transaction price, the price of the transaction case to be taken into account is the price formed in ordinary transactions with respect to land identical or similar to the land to be expropriated in the vicinity of the land to be expropriated, such as the specific use area, land category, grade, land register, form, use status, and statutory restrictions, which are the price formed in the ordinary transactions with respect to land identical or similar to the land to be expropriated, not including development gains. However, the transaction cases cited by the appraiser cannot be ruled out that eight months have passed from the date of the instant expropriation ruling, and that development gains from the instant housing site development project were included in the price, and thus, the above ( Address 1 omitted) is not taken into consideration, but the land category is different from that of the instant land whose land category is “the whole site,” and the above ( Address 2 omitted) and two lots, other than the above, can not be a comparative case because the specific use area differs from the land of this case, which is a green production area, and there is no adequate method of appraisal without taking into account such issues.

(3) In addition, in order to raise the price of the land on its own as it is low, it shall not be immediately revised solely on the ground that the price of the land on its own is lower than the price, the price of the land on its own, or the price of the neighboring land is lower than the price of the land on its own due to the implementation of the project in question. In other words, in a case where the price of the land to be expropriated was designated as the project district on its own due to the implementation of the project in question, there should be sufficient proof to deem that the land price was lower than the price of the land on its own, which would have been higher than the price of the land on its own, due to the designation as the project district on its own as the project district on its own, and there should be a difference not only between the price increase rate of neighboring land or the price increase rate of the land on its own, but also only the natural land price increase rate excluded from the development gains on its own. However, the said appraiser merely raised the price of the standard land on the ground that it was lower than the price increase of the standard land on its own.

(4) Therefore, the court below's determination of the compensation amount of the land of this case based on the appraisal result by the above appraiser is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as to the assessment of compensation amount of land to be expropriated or in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore,

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)