The meaning of "where several parcels of land are in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use" in case where the land is once more indivisible.

[1] Articles 9, 10, and 10-2 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 15 of the Regulations on Appraisal and Assessment

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18298 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3655) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3125 delivered on December 22, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 245) Supreme Court Decision 98Du948 delivered on September 29, 200, Supreme Court Decision 99Du8824 delivered on July 27, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1983)

Kim Jong-hee and two others (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Yellow-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu6141 Delivered on December 24, 2004

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. In case where several parcels of land are indivisible for the purpose of use, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the whole parcels of land as one parcel, and to investigate the characteristics of land as one parcel, and evaluate the whole at a single price. Here, the term "case of indivisible relationship for the purpose of use" means a case where the situation in which a group of lands is used as one parcel of land is deemed reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects and in terms of the formation of value of the land in question (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du824 delivered on July 27, 2001).

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, in the case where the plaintiffs purchased the land in this case and the neighboring Kuo-dong 150-64 m21 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Yo-dong 150-64 m2") on July 29, 192 and used the land as a site such as buildings and staff accommodation, etc., and separately used the land in this case and 150-64 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Yo-dong 150-64 m2") compared to the area of the land in this case, the land in this case becomes disadvantageous to individual factors because the surface of the road is narrow compared to the area of the land in this case and the adjacent Kuo-dong 150-64 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Yo-dong 150-64 m2") with a narrow usefulness in terms of social, economic and administrative aspects, it is reasonable to use the land in this case as the land in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. On the other hand, the court below's appraiser evaluated the land of this case as the heat in the terms of land comparison compared to the standard of comparison for the reason that the land of this case has a large degree of illegality, and visited the site, etc. to search and investigate the situation, etc. at the time of expropriation of the land of this case, and estimate and assess the land price at the time of pricing based on the investigation results and collected data. In light of the records, there is no error

This part of the ground of appeal is without merit.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)