[1] In a case where a hot spring developer has filed a report of hot spring discovery on the land to be expropriated and has filed an interim report by the Korea Resource Research Institute that is suitable for hot spring, whether the possibility of future development into hot spring should be reflected in the land price calculation factor in assessing the land to be expropriated (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that appraisal by an appraisal corporation's appraisal is unlawful in light of its objectivity and rationality and beyond the limit of other conditions of consideration by excessively assessing the future trend of the possibility of development into hot spring without any specific grounds

[3] The method of compensating for a structure that is an obstacle to land expropriation

[4] The meaning of losses caused by land expropriation under Article 51 of the Land Expropriation Act

[1] In a case where a hot spring developer reported hot spring discovery of the land to be expropriated and submitted to an intermediate report by the Korea Resource Research Institute that is suitable for hot spring by making a report on hot spring discovery at the end of a hot spring development project with cost and effort, it is reasonable to deem that there is an objective factor affecting the formation of land price, and it is reasonable to consider that there is an objective factor affecting the formation of land price. Therefore, in assessing these land, the possibility of future hot spring development itself as other factors or the evaluation of individual factors should be reflected in any form, such as correcting the possibility of development into hot spring itself

[2] The case holding that appraisal by an appraisal corporation's appraisal is unlawful in light of its objectivity and rationality and beyond the limit of other conditions of consideration by excessively assessing the future trend of the possibility of development into hot spring without specific grounds

[3] In full view of the provisions of Article 49(1) and (3) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 2(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13649 of May 22, 192), and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, in the case of a structure that is an obstacle, if it is impossible or considerably difficult to use it for the original purpose due to the principle of compensating for the relocation cost or the relocation cost, or if the relocation cost exceeds the acquisition price, it shall be evaluated

[4] The loss caused by the expropriation of land under Article 51 of the Land Expropriation Act should be objectively deemed as a result of the expropriation of land if there is a proximate causal relation between the expropriation of land and the occurrence of loss.

[1] Articles 45 and 46 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991); Article 17 of the former Hot Spring Act (amended by Act No. 5121 of Dec. 30, 1995) / [2] Articles 45 and 46 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991); Article 17 of the former Hot Spring Act (amended by Act No. 5121 of Dec. 30, 1995); Article 46, Article 49(1) and (3) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991); Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5124 of Dec. 34, 1992) / [3] Article 46, Article 49(1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No.

[3] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12597 delivered on January 20, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 617)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Kim Shin-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu694 delivered on October 28, 1998

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.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

Based on his employment evidence, the court below found that the plaintiff, prior to the ruling of expropriation of this case, laid the drilling hole into the land subject to expropriation of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case"), was found to have made a report of hot spring discovery, and the report was accepted after the ruling of expropriation of this case was made, and on January 20, 1996, the price of the land of this case was designated as the hot spring district, and was designated as a tourist destination under the Tourism Promotion Act on December 31, 1997.

Furthermore, the court below held that the ruling of this case was unlawful on the ground that the appraisal result of Korea's appraisal appraisal corporation, which is a appraiser of the court below, did not consider the land price formation factor on the ground that there was no designation of a hot spring district under the Hot Spring Act and no long-term development plan is not designated as a hot spring district, but was designated as a hot spring district according to the Plaintiff's report of hot spring discovery, and that the price of the pertinent land would increase rapidly if a hot spring was developed and designated as a hot spring district, and that it is obvious in light of the empirical rule to increase rapidly the price of the pertinent land. In light of the fact that the appraisal report of this case, which is the basis of the ruling of this case, did not consider the land price formation factor on the ground that there was no designation of a hot spring district under the Hot Spring Act and no long-term development plan was established, and that the appraisal result of this case was legitimate in view of the possibility of future development into hot spring development, hot spring discovery report, and the rate of appraisal rate of 1 to the adjacent land within 5-1 to the land.

However, according to the records, when the plaintiff reported hot spring discovery and requested a specialized inspection for the acceptance of a report by the Sung Gun, and submitted an interim report that the land in this case is fit for hot spring once as a result of a necessary inspection by the Korea Resources Research Institute, it is reasonable to view that there was an objective factor affecting the formation of land because it has been confirmed that there was a hot spring in this case, when comprehensively considering the relevant circumstances at the time of this case where a hot spring developer filed a report of hot spring discovery at the end of the development of hot spring and submitted an interim report that is fit for hot spring as a hot spring after the hot spring developer made a report of hot spring discovery at cost and effort. Therefore, in assessing these land, it should be reflected in any form such as correcting the future hot spring development potential itself as other factors or considering the future trend of the land in the evaluation of individual factors, etc.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the ruling of objection, which did not reflect the circumstances of the unique nature of this case as the land price calculation factor at all, is unlawful.

However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s determination of the reasonable amount of compensation for the instant land on the premise that the result of appraisal entrustment to Korea’s appraisal corporation is lawful.

First of all, it is difficult to view that the appraisal report is reasonable in calculating the amount of compensation, as long as it is difficult to ascertain whether the appraisal report was made according to the appraisal, although the appraisal report is based on the land price of this case as of December 31, 1997, the price of this case as of 90,000/m2, which is set as the price of 90,000 won/m2, and the sale price in the hot spring district was considered the price of a hot spring area across the country. However, it is questionable whether it is reasonable to seek an increase rate in comparison with the officially assessed land price of this case, as long as it is difficult to ascertain whether the appraisal report was made as to whether the compensation was made as of May 14, 1993.

In addition, after comparing the land price level after the designation of a hot spring district and the land price level at the time of report of hot spring discovery in the statement of the appraisal report, it is found that the land price level in the hot spring district is uncertain as of 9.73 times after the date of distribution, and the rise due to the designation of a hot spring district is high, and 5.84 times the amount is estimated to be 60%. In addition, there is no reasonable ground to 60% level, and as a result, the correction rate at the time of the price in this case is set as the basis for the assessment, which is the future time after the designation of a hot spring district.

On the other hand, the price assessment can be applied by taking into account the normal market price of similar neighboring land. However, the appraisal report itself also states that the reliable transaction cases of neighboring land of this case could not be discovered until the time of designation of a tourist destination after the report of hot spring discovery was made. However, since there was no assertion or proof by the plaintiff, this cannot be viewed as the normal market price of neighboring land.

Ultimately, the appraisal by Korea's appraisal corporation is illegal because it has assessed the future trend of the possibility of development without any specific grounds and judged objectivity and rationality, and it exceeded the limit of the consideration of other conditions.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the appraisal value according to the illegal appraisal entrustment is the fair compensation value, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the principle of calculating the compensation amount for land.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. In full view of Article 49(1) and (3) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 2(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Damage (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13649, May 22, 192); Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, in the case of a structure that is an obstacle, if it is unable to use or use it for the original purpose due to the principle of compensating for the relocation cost, or the relocation cost is considerably difficult, or if the relocation cost exceeds the acquisition price, it shall be evaluated as acquisition price and compensated (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12597, Jan. 20, 198).

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the compensation should be calculated based on the acquisition price assessed based on the expenses invested in the excavation of the hot spring hole in accordance with the above legal principles, that is, the cost necessary to newly install the substitute facility cost in another place, is proper, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of

The ground of appeal on this point is rejected.

(b) The loss caused by the expropriation of land as stipulated in Article 51 of the Land Expropriation Act should be objectively and objectively deemed to have a proximate causal relationship between the expropriation of land and the occurrence of loss, as property loss, which is anticipated to naturally sustain by the landowner, etc. as a result of the expropriation of land

In light of the records, the plaintiff's additional installation of 2 test holes was impossible because the old diameter of the exploration drilling hole in the land subject to the expropriation of this case was so small that it was necessary to newly start the test hole to undergo a specialized inspection necessary for hot spring discovery report and repair due to the lack of investigation by the Korea Institute of Energy and Resources, which was a hot spring-related specialized institution. The research institute conducted an examination only as to whether the plaintiff is suitable for only one hot spring among the drilling and 3 test laboratories, and it did not conduct a survey of the quantity of reserve and the quantity of debt for the designation of a hot spring district. Thus, even if the original drilling alone can be recognized as hot spring, it is difficult to view that the additional installation costs of the test hole cannot be considered as losses due to the expropriation of this case because 2 hot spring hole additionally started to meet the criteria set forth in the Guidelines for the Development and Improvement of Hot Spring Areas. Thus, the conclusion of the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the additional installation costs of the test hole cannot be subject to compensation for losses is justifiable, and there is no violation of law.

We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)