[1] In calculating the amount of compensation following land expropriation, whether the wholesale price inflation rate should be taken into account in the case where the land price fluctuation rate is adequately reflected (negative)

[2] In a case where the appraisal result for calculating compensation for losses due to land expropriation is illegal, whether the portion not unlawful among the appraisal content can be considered in the judgment (affirmative)

[1] According to Article 46 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act on the calculation of the amount of compensation for the expropriation of land, the land shall be based on the officially announced land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and the amount of compensation shall be determined at a reasonable price assessed by considering the location, shape, environment, and current use of the land in addition to the land use plan, the land use rate, the wholesale price fluctuation rate, and the wholesale price inflation rate. The purport of the above provision, other than the land use rate, is to supplement the wholesale price fluctuation in special circumstances where the land price fluctuation rate is not adequately reflected in the land

[2] In the case of land expropriation, one of the appraisal for the calculation of compensation for losses is illegal if there is an illegal cause. However, even if the appraisal is illegal, the court may extract the appraisal from the appraisal and take it into account in its judgment.

[1] Article 46 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act / [2] Article 46 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.

Plaintiff (Appellant and Appellee)

Central Land Expropriation Committee and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu35813 delivered on February 26, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the agreement on the sale and purchase of the above land was reasonable, taking into account the following facts: (a) the land in this case belongs to a general residential area and (b) the land category and the use status of which conflict with the natural green belt which is a development-restricted zone; (c) the land in this case was incorporated into the development-restricted zone for Namyang-si and 77 lots belonging to the same general residential area; (d) the time of the price was compensated for KRW 423,00 per square meter with the point of time as of February 28, 1996 when the land in this case was incorporated into the development-restricted zone; (d) the entire land in this case and (e) the total of 16,825 square meters of the land in this case and (e) 11,58 square meters of the land in this case and (e) 11,615,700,000 won of the land in this case’s land in this case’s early sale and purchase of the above land at the time of 197.

In light of the records, the recognition and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit. We do not agree with this.

2. On the second ground for appeal by the plaintiff

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) based on macro-si evidence, the land adjoining to the road (road address 6 omitted) 2,502 square meters wide to west-gun, Namyang-gun (road address 6 omitted), which was owned by the plaintiff; (b) the Defendant Corporation applied for subdivision pursuant to the project implementation necessity, divided the (road address 6 omitted) 1,562 square meters from the land of this case into the (road address 6 omitted); and (c) on September 14, 1996, the Nam-gu, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City demanded the donation of the portion of the land urban planning on the (road address 8 omitted); (d) on the (road 6 omitted) the land adjoining to the road (road 9 omitted); and (e) the remaining land of this case, other than the above (road 8 omitted); and (e) the land of this case, which had no influence on the road of this case, should be deemed to have been 6) the adjacent to the road of this case’s building.

In light of the records, we affirm the recognition and judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the conclusion of the opinion.

3. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 3

According to Article 46 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act, land shall be determined based on the officially announced land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, but the amount of compensation shall be determined at a reasonable price assessed by taking into account the land use plan, the land price fluctuation rate, and the location, shape, environment, and current use of the land in addition to the wholesale price inflation rate. The purport of the above provision taking into account wholesale price fluctuation in addition to the wholesale price fluctuation rate is to supplement through special circumstances where the land price fluctuation rate is not adequately reflected in the land price trend. Thus, if the land price fluctuation rate is properly reflected,

In assessing the price of the land of this case on the ground that the wholesale price inflation rate of this case from January 1, 1995, which was the base date of the officially announced land price of the reference land of this case, to March 5, 1996, the above expropriation ruling date, cannot be seen as properly reflecting the price fluctuation rate of the general residential area in the Namyang-si, where the land of this case is located, compared with the price fluctuation rate of the general residential area in the Namyang-si, where the land of this case was located, the wholesale price inflation rate of this case is not considered. Ultimately, the wholesale price fluctuation rate of this case does not properly reflect the price fluctuations, and there is no special reason to correct it by wholesale price inflation. Therefore,

4. As to the Defendant’s first ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the whole land area of this case was determined and publicly announced on May 25, 1978. In light of the provisions of Article 40 (1) 2 and Article 36 (2) 1 of the Farmland Act, Article 9 (4) of the Addenda, Article 4 (2) and Article 4 (1) 1 of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act at the time when the above urban planning was determined and publicly announced as of May 25, 1978, the whole land area of this case was land of this case, although the land category was the answer, the land price of this case can be converted into a site. However, in order to convert it into a site, it can increase the utility of the surrounding house area, and in the process, 4% of the cost of planning such as design cost, measurement cost, road renovation facility, etc. is required, compared to the above rate of the administrative condition of the land of this case, and there is no error in the determination of the court below as to the conversion of the land of this case into the land of this case.

5. As to the defendant's second ground for appeal

In the case of land expropriation, one of the appraisal for the calculation of compensation for losses is illegal if there is an illegal cause, but even if the appraisal is illegal, the court may extract the appraisal from the appraisal and take it into account in its judgment.

Therefore, the court below's decision is just in calculating the fair amount of compensation by extracting parts of the appraisal of this case from the appraisal of this case, and it cannot be said that there is no error as to the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for discussion

6. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)