(a) In a case where the adjudication of acceptance and objection are made on or after July 1, 1989, the enforcement date of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, as well as on or after July 1, 1989; and

(b) Whether the normal market price of similar similar land should be taken into consideration in calculating the amount of land expropriation compensation;

C. Whether the case of compensation should be taken into account in calculating the amount of land expropriation compensation

(d) Whether the approval of a plan for the direct purpose of the implementation of the relevant public project should be taken into account in calculating the amount of land expropriation compensation (negative);

A. In a case where the adjudication of acceptance and objection are made on or before December 30, 1989, which was the enforcement date of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1989), the previous standard land price shall be substituted by the officially announced land price, but the specific method of appraisal, such as the selection of standard land price and the method of taking into account factors for pricing prices, shall be governed by 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 former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 191); Articles 9 and

B. Since Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory explicitly stated the normal transaction price of similar land as one of the factors for calculating the amount of compensation, it was interpreted that the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated should be taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation by clarifying the transaction cases of similar land and the normal transaction price. However, the relevant provisions, such as Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act and Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act do not specify the normal transaction price of adjacent land and do not specify the normal transaction price of adjacent land as the factors for calculating the amount of compensation, it cannot be interpreted as being the same as the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory. However, it may be considered only when there are normal transaction cases

C. Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act and Article 46(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act do not stipulate the compensation example as one of the factors for calculating the price in calculating the compensation amount of the land to be expropriated, and such evaluation cannot be deemed unlawful. However, in such a case, the compensation example is related to similar lands adjacent to the adjacent area, and it may be an important material for assessing the reasonable price of the land to be expropriated. Therefore, it is reasonable to take this into account.

(d) In computing 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 with the direct purpose of implementing the relevant public project and the price fluctuation due to the announcement

(a)(c) Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 4 and Article 9(a) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; (b) Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989). Article 5 of the Addenda to the Public Notice

Plaintiff 1 and one other plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Hongk Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Central Land Tribunal and one other, Defendants Kim-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu1252 delivered on July 3, 1991

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

The Defendants’ legal representatives’ grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the ruling of expropriation of the land of this case was made on July 4, 1989, the court below found that the above ruling of expropriation of the land of this case was made on December 18 of the same year, and that the appraisal of the land of this case was made on November 13, 1987 under Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989) and that the appraisal of the land of this case was made on August 1 of the same year as the appraisal base date, and that the appraisal of the land of this case was made on July 30, 1989 by the first appraisal of the land of this case as the basic date of the appraisal and assessment of the land of this case, the appraisal of the land of this case should be based on the specific appraisal and assessment method of the previous appraisal and assessment method of the land of this case as well as the appraisal and assessment method of the previous appraisal and assessment method of the land of this case.

2. First, we examine whether to take into account the normal transaction price of similar neighboring land.

(1) Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989; Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991; Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 199) provides that compensation for land shall be based on the officially announced value under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, which shall be determined by taking into account the utilization plan of the land in question, the price fluctuation rate of neighboring land unrelated to the area in question, wholesale inflation rate, and other matters. Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Land Prices Act, effective on the same date, provide that appraisal of the land shall be based on one or more standard land prices, which are deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question, and that the officially announced value of the standard land in question shall be balanced, and that the land price in question shall be determined by the Presidential Decree No. 981, Dec. 31, 1991.

(2) However, Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is interpreted to consider the amount of compensation in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated as the normal transaction price of the neighboring similar land is stipulated as one of the factors for calculating the amount of compensation. However, the relevant provisions such as Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act or Articles 9 and 10 of the Land Price Disclosure Act do not stipulate the normal transaction price of the neighboring similar land as the factors for calculating the amount of compensation by specifying the normal transaction price of the neighboring land. Thus, it cannot be interpreted as the same as at the time of the above former Act. However, it should be considered only when there are normal transaction cases of the neighboring similar land and it is proved that the normal transaction price is likely to affect the adequate amount of compensation.

Therefore, in this case, under the premise that the appraisal method, such as the price calculation method, would be based on Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the court below erred in holding that each appraisal of the Han Dong-dong and the Blue joint agreement was illegal merely because it did not consider the normal market price of neighboring similar land, which is the price calculation factor stipulated in the above Act.

Meanwhile, according to the appraisal by the above appraiser of the court below, the sale case ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted), including ( Address 2 omitted), and ( Address 3 omitted), are considered to calculate the compensation amount for the land Nos. 2, 3 and 6 of this case by considering the sale price of similar neighboring land as the normal sale price. However, according to the records, the land of this case is a general residential area and its land category and actual use status are commercial areas, and ( Address 1 omitted), and ( Address 2 omitted), it is a natural green area and ( Address 3 omitted) land category and actual use status are not different from all of the land of this case and its specific use area or land category or actual use status, and since the sale price of the above three transaction cases is determined after the date of the ruling on expropriation, and in particular, ( Address 3 omitted) sale and purchase of the above land is determined after the date of the above appraisal or sale, it cannot be seen as a sale price of the above land, and thus, it cannot be seen as a sale price of the above land even if it can be determined as a sale price.

3. We examine whether the compensation preference is taken into account:

The court below held that, on October 30, 198, Hansung-dong's ( Address 4 omitted) site was 100,000 won per square meter, and ( Address 5 omitted) site was 150,000 won per square meter, respectively, in calculating the amount of compensation of this case, the court below held that it cannot be deemed that the appraised value of the Daesung-dong's consent cannot be legally calculated on the ground that the above compensation examples were not taken into account at all.

However, the relevant provisions such as Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act and the Public Notice of Land Price Act do not stipulate the compensation example as one of the factors for calculating the price of the land to be expropriated, and such evaluation cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the compensation example is not considered as being considered as one of the factors for calculating the price. However, in such a case, the compensation example concerning similar lands may be an important material for assessing the reasonable price of the land to be expropriated. Therefore, it is reasonable to take this into account in such a case.

However, in addition to the fact that the land of the above two parcels of land as the compensation preference case is adjacent to the land of this case, there is no particular material to recognize that all the conditions are identical or similar to the land of this case on the record, and in the above (No. 6 No. 5 omitted), the land category of the above (No. 5 omitted) land is indicated as “former” and the compensation amount is determined at KRW 198,500 per square meter in the adjudication of objection of December 18, 1989, and the compensation amount is determined. Thus, it is obvious that the land category of the above two parcels of land as recognized by the court below and the land category of the land, the date of the decision of compensation, the price, etc. are considerably different. Thus, it is not clear whether the compensation preference, such as recognized by the court below, actually existed.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below's determination that the evaluation was unlawful immediately on the ground that it did not take into account the examples of compensation for each of the above lands.

4. We examine whether the apartment zone has been cancelled or not.

Considering that the price on the land of this case was cancelled in an apartment zone as of February 28, 1989, prior to the expropriation ruling of this case, when comparing individual factors on the land of this case 2, 3, and 6 and the land of this case as the reference land of this case, the court below held that the appraisal by the above appraiser of the court below was justifiable, which held that the price on the land of this case was equal to 105/100,000 compared to the reference land, and that each appraisal of the above apartment zone and the public-private partnership agreement was erroneous, unless considering the fact of cancellation of the apartment zone as above in the calculation of compensation amount.

However, if the land of this case is to be seen as being superior to that of the reference land on the ground of the cancellation of the apartment zone on the ground of the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below, the land of this case was released from the apartment zone, but the reference land is not removed from the apartment zone, and even according to the record, it is unclear whether the land of this case was released from the apartment zone, but the reference land is released from the apartment zone, or the reference land is removed from the apartment zone, and rather, in light of the location of the land of this case and the reference land of this case as indicated in the record and the contents of the housing site development project of this case, it is deemed that the land of this case and reference land of this case are not cancelled from the apartment zone, and if so, there is no difference between the land of this case and reference land of this case

In addition, in calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the reasonable price shall be determined based on the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without consideration of the price changes caused by the approval of a plan, announcement, and price changes caused by the announcement, which is directly used for the execution of the relevant public project. If the cancellation is made in an apartment zone as part of the execution of the housing site development project which is the purpose of the land expropriation in this case, not only the approval of the said housing site development project

The court below should have clarified the above points, and then should have determined whether the fact of cancellation of the apartment zone becomes a ground for consideration in the assessment of the amount of compensation.

5. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation amount, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the incomplete hearing, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)