(a) The method of calculating the amount of compensation for land to be expropriated within the area where the reference land is publicly announced;

B. Appropriateness of appraisal based on the first adjudication price subject to objection in the adjudication procedure on land expropriation as the grounds for considering the first adjudication price (negative)

A. In calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated pursuant to Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the standard price for the standard land shall be based on the standard land price, and the calculation of compensation price for the land to be compensated based on the standard land price shall be reasonable in consideration of the price calculation factors prescribed in Article 29(5) of the same Act, such as the rate of land price fluctuations from the date of public announcement of the area subject to the public announcement of the standard land price to the date of determination of compensation amount, the region and individual factors of the standard land price, and it shall be objectively recognized that the calculation

(b) An appraisal shall not be deemed improper to take into account the primary adjudication price as the one to be dissatisfied with the appraisal procedure again in which the owner of the land to be expropriated is dissatisfied with the first adjudication and again in which the assessment of the relevant land price is based on the assessment of the relevant land price.

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 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3505 delivered on December 26, 1989 (Gong1990,404) 89Nu5881 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong1990,1269) 89Nu802 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong190,1271)

[Defendant-Appellee] Jink Law Firm Han-tae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The Central Land Tribunal (Law Firm Hong, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation (Law Firm Hongk Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu6893 delivered on February 15, 1990

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below assessed the compensation of the land of this case as KRW 168,00 per square meter, and the subsequent office of this case as KRW 167,00,00, which is the basis for calculating the amount of compensation at the time of the judgment of this case, and recognized the fact that the above two offices used the land of this case as the reference price for the standard price for the total land of this case, which is one of the land of this case, and applied the price fluctuation rate higher than the increase rate of wholesale prices to the standard price. In light of individual factors, since there are no transaction cases in neighboring areas, the above offices were ratified and adjusted by taking into account the estimated price of the land of this case between many brokers and the estimated price of the land of this case, and the assessment level of the planned area for relay housing site development, which is the similar areas within the right to this case, as the average price of the land of this case, the above offices were legitimate by taking into account the above average price of KRW 167,000,00.

2. However, in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it shall be based on the standard land price of the reference land, but it shall be reasonable to calculate the amount of compensation based on the standard land price in consideration of the price calculation factors prescribed in Article 29(5) of the same Act, the regional and individual factors of the reference land and the land subject to compensation, such as the rate of land price fluctuation from the date of public announcement of the area subject to compensation to the date of determination of the standard land price, and it shall be objectively recognized that the amount of compensation has been calculated appropriately by specifying the above evaluation factors in the appraisal report by the land appraiser by specifying them in detail as above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu581, May 8, 199; 88Nu3505, Dec. 26, 1989).

Then, considering the appraisal report of the second appraiser's joint office, it is unclear as to which rate of land price fluctuations has been applied to the above standard land because the land of Changdong 308, which is the standard land of this case, is omitted from the land price fluctuation rate.

Ultimately, since each appraisal report by each land appraiser at the above joint office is objectively impossible to determine whether the amount of compensation for each land of this case was properly calculated, such appraisal report is difficult to recognize its propriety.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that each appraisal of the above two joint offices, which served as the basis for the judgment of this case, was lawful in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the calculation standard of compensation for loss, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)