(a) Where the Central Land Tribunal erred in calculating the amount of compensation in a ruling on an objection made by the Central Land Tribunal, but the amount exceeds the amount of reasonable compensation or in the same case, whether the request for cancellation of the ruling is made (negative

(b) Measures to be taken by a court, if the amount of compensation for loss under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is not considered;

(c) Methods for calculating compensation for losses where land is expropriated within the area where the standard land prices are publicly announced;

(a) In a case where the amount of compensation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee exceeds or is the same as the amount legally calculated, even if the method of calculating the amount of compensation was erroneous, it cannot seek revocation of such adjudication on the ground that the calculation of amount of compensation is unlawful;

B. In assessing the amount of compensation for expropriation of land within the area where the standard price is publicly announced, if it did not take into account the wholesale price inflation stipulated in Article 49(1)2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, it would result in calculating the amount of compensation more than the case where the wholesale price increase in the relevant period is set at zero or incidental than the case where the wholesale price increase in the relevant period is set at least, or the case where the wholesale price increase is set at a more than the case where the wholesale price increase in the relevant period is set at the same time. Therefore, it should be determined whether the court calculated the amount of compensation at a low price because it did not take into account the wholesale price increase from the standard land price

(c)in case of expropriation of land within an area where the reference price is publicly notified, the compensation for the loss shall be calculated on the basis of the reference price publicly notified for one reference land, the category and grade of which are the same as that of each reference land in advance determined according to the classification by land category in that area, on the condition that the reasonable price shall be calculated by taking into account specific and comprehensive consideration of all factors for calculation of the price under Article 29, paragraph 5

Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu547 delivered on August 23, 1983, 87Nu929 delivered on September 20, 198, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8647 delivered on December 27, 198, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu514 delivered on May 9, 198, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2496 delivered on May 23, 198, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10145 delivered on July 11, 1989, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu342 delivered on September 12, 1989

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Attorney of the Central Land Tribunal or his/her legal representative

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1067 delivered on September 20, 1988

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

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant applied the compensation amount for the land of this case on the basis of the evaluation results of the above two joint offices by requesting an appraisal of the land appraisal company and the land appraisal company's joint offices (hereinafter referred to as the "joint offices", 3.9%, 3.3% of the price increase rate, 20% of the compensation amount, 15% of the compensation amount, and 154,000 won per square, as standard land price in appraisal of the above land. The standard land price increase rate was 4.2% of the total land price increase rate from 1986 to 10% of the total land price increase rate, which was calculated on the basis of the appraisal of the above land as 5% of the total land price increase rate, and the appraisal price increase rate was 1.5% of the total land price increase rate was 20% of the total land price increase rate, 3.5% of the appraisal price increase rate per two adjacent to the above joint offices.

2. First, it is reasonable to review the appraisal report on the Defendant’s calculation of the amount of compensation and the appraisal report on the Nonparty’s appraiser employed by the lower court as evidence.

(1) The above two joint offices are located in the vicinity of the pertinent land, and the land of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted), which is recognized as similar to the land use, natural, and social conditions (the category of public injury is the answer, the specific use area in urban planning is a natural green belt, the actual use is a miscellaneous land, and the surrounding environment is a mixed zone of lux manufacturing place and farmland) is designated as the reference land. The compensation amount is calculated based on the reference land price publicly notified, but the appraiser of the lower court determined the compensation amount based on the reference land price. However, the reference land price was determined by the above ( Address omitted), the reference land price of which is publicly notified, and it did not clearly state which land is calculated by making the reference land as reference land.

(2) The above two joint offices clearly state that the fluctuation rate of neighboring land unrelated to the pertinent region is 3.9%, 0.0%, 2.7%, 1.9%, 4.2% and 3.9%, respectively, and other 4.2%. As seen earlier, the appraiser of the lower court stated that the inflation rate of land prices for one year from October 1, 1985 to September 30, 1986 is 3.9% for green areas, but did not state how to take this into account.

(3) The overall price increase rate of similar neighboring land due to the progress of development projects in neighboring areas or changes in specific use areas in urban planning, which reflects 20 percent of the aggregate and 15 percent of the aggregate, respectively, and the appraiser of the court below stated that he was referring to the market price of the Dobong-gu Seoul River Zone on April 1, 1987 on the current market price survey table, and did not disclose which method and degree are reflected.

(4) The above two joint offices clearly indicate both the base price, the factors considered, and the method and degree of the consideration, and accordingly calculated the amount of compensation for loss, but the appraiser at the lower court did not state how and to what extent the factors for price calculation were reflected in the calculation based on any standard price. In addition, all the three appraisal reports did not specifically reflect the rate of increase in wholesale price.

3. According to Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 49(1)1 of the same Decree, the land fluctuation rate of neighboring land to be considered in calculating the compensation amount when the land price is expropriated within the area for which the standard price is publicly announced shall be the same land category of neighboring land unrelated to the area. However, in calculating the compensation amount of the land in this case, the land fluctuation rate of neighboring land to be considered shall be the same land category of neighboring land which is not related to the area concerned, and if there is no same land category, it shall be wrong to take into account the land fluctuation rate of similar land into account and reflect it before the land classification is calculated. However, even if the Defendant’s ruling of compensation amount is more or less than the legally calculated amount of compensation, it shall not be deemed to have been unlawful in calculating the compensation amount and thus, it shall not be deemed to have been applied to the appraisal rate of 1.3 percent prior to the appraisal rate of the above 9810 percent rate of the land (see this case. 98.

4. In addition, according to the above provisions of this Act, when the existing land is expropriated in the area where the existing land is publicly announced, the standard price should be determined by taking into account the wholesale price ratio surveyed and published each month by the Bank of Korea from the evaluation standard date to the original adjudication date. Thus, when assessing the amount of compensation for losses for the land in this case, if the two joint offices did not take into account the wholesale price inflation rate, it would be erroneous, but if the reasons for not taking into account the wholesale price inflation in the relevant period are either zero or incidental, it would result in calculating the amount of compensation more than the one for which the wholesale price inflation was not reflected, or it would not be possible to revoke the ruling. As seen in this case, the lower court’s appraiser did not take into account the wholesale price inflation specifically. The lower court should have deliberated on what extent the wholesale price inflation in the pertinent period should have been determined by examining whether the two joint offices calculated at a low price without taking into account the wholesale price inflation rate.

5. In the case of expropriation of land within an area where the reference land price is publicly announced, the standard land price publicly notified for one reference land, the category and grade of which are the same as that of each reference land among those determined in advance according to the classification by land category shall be based on the calculation of compensation amount. However, it is the opinion of party members that the reasonable price should be calculated by taking into account specific and comprehensive consideration of all factors for calculation of prices under Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8647 delivered on December 27, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu514 delivered on May 9, 198; Supreme Court Decision 8Nu2496 delivered on May 23, 198).

Although comparing and reviewing each appraisal report of the two joint offices and the lower court’s expert appraisers, as seen earlier, the former appraisal method does not appear to have been significantly erroneous, while the latter’s appraisal method does not clearly state what land was selected as a reference land, and what method and degree should be considered, and it is difficult to find out whether the latter’s appraisal method is based on the method of computing the amount of compensation as seen above.

Therefore, in order for the court below to reject the evaluation of two joint offices in light of the above appraisal result by the expert witness of the court below, it should have determined whether the appraisal by the court below was based on the lawful method of calculating the compensation amount.

As seen above, the court below set forth the issue of application of the rate of land fluctuation, which cannot be the ground for revoking the objection of this case, and did not look at whether the wholesale price inflation rate to be taken into account in calculating the compensation amount due to the expropriation of the land of this case is zero or incidental, or not, and whether the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below is based on the lawful method of calculating the compensation amount, thereby leading to the judgment that the judgment of this case is unlawful, by taking into account the fact that the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below is more than the compensation amount of the judgment of this case, and without considering the fact that the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below is more than the compensation amount of the judgment of this case. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to calculating the compensation amount under Article 29(5)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)