In calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated, whether the land category and specific use area in the public record shall be considered the transaction cases of another neighboring land or the transaction cases after the expropriation ruling (negative)

The land category on the public register of the land to be expropriated in this case is all the land category on the public register of neighboring land, which is likely to be developed into the next commercial area as a result of the implementation of the housing site development project in this case, and the land category on the public register of neighboring land where transaction cases exist is a site. If the specific use area is a decrepital zone, the land in this case cannot be deemed as a similar land of this case, and if the sale case of neighboring similar land is later than the time of the adjudication of expropriation in this case, it cannot be said that the above transaction price was not taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation for the land

Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

Red-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

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

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu2863 delivered on February 9, 1990

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

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

The court below found, based on evidence, that the No. 623-18 land adjacent to the above land was 203,00 won per square meter around April 1987; 723-5 land of the same 723-1 land was 151,00 won per square meter around April 1987; and 622-1 land of the same 62-1 land was 347,887 won per square meter around December 8, 1987; and that the above normal market price was not considered at all, since the above two joint offices did not take into account the normal market price as stipulated in Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and thus the compensation amount of the above land was not considered as unlawful. Furthermore, the court below held that the above two joint offices' appraisal was unlawful since it did not take into account the normal market price of neighboring land under Article 29 (5) of the former Act.

However, according to the records, the land category in the public record is all the site at the time of the transaction, and the specific use area is a streetside area, while the land in this case can be seen as the land category in the public record, the answer and orchard, which is likely to be developed into the primary commercial area as a result of the implementation of the housing site development project in this case, and the land in this case can not be regarded as the similar land in this case. In addition, the sale case of the land in the 622-1 land in the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the land in this case is not the transaction price on December 8, 1987, not the time of the decision of expropriation in this case (the September 18, 1987).

Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have erred by failing to take into account the above transaction price when calculating the amount of compensation for the instant land. It is reasonable to conclude that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the amount of compensation for losses and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

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)