(a) Appellate appeal against the winning judgment;

(b) Where there is an error in calculating the amount of compensation among the dispositions by the Land Tribunal, the revocation of such disposition; and

C. Whether a court can immediately revoke the adjudication disposition on the ground that the choice of the principle of appraisal of compensation for land expropriation is unlawful

(d) Method of calculating the amount of compensation of land where the reference land was publicly notified but the selection of reference land and the reference land were not publicly notified;

A. An appeal is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, and in light of the nature of the appeal system, the appeal on the judgment in favor of the winning party shall not be allowed even if it is dissatisfied with the grounds of the appeal system.

B. Since the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated constitutes an integral part of the adjudication on land expropriation, even if it is deemed that there is illegality only in calculating the amount of compensation as a result of the review of an appeal litigation against the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, the court shall revoke the entire adjudication and shall not revoke only the amount of compensation among the dispositions.

C. In calculating the amount of compensation for land expropriation, it may normally be anticipated that the result of the appraisal (the amount of compensation) may vary depending on the criteria and method of appraisal. Thus, inasmuch as the court deliberated on an appeal litigation against the disposition of land expropriation adjudication and concluded that the selection of the principle of appraisal of compensation is illegal as a result of an appeal litigation, barring any special circumstance to deem that the calculation of compensation itself was appropriate despite such a mistake, the court may determine and cancel the illegality of the adjudication disposition itself, and in such a case, it does not necessarily require that the compensation amount should be compared with the amount of compensation in the adjudication by examining the compensation amount according to a legitimate standard and method.

D. In the case of expropriation of land in an area where the reference land price was publicly announced but there was no selection of the reference land price in which the legitimate reference land price was not publicly announced, there is no applicable standard land in the area, and thus, it is not appropriate in light of the purpose and criteria for selection of reference land, and thus, the calculation of compensation amount shall be governed by the general provisions of Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act.

A. Article 392(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 30(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9908, Jun. 17, 1980

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Da529 delivered on November 8, 1983, 84Nu325 delivered on December 24, 1985, 83Nu278 delivered on June 24, 1986

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and six plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu70 delivered on April 21, 1983

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

1. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

An appeal is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, and in light of the nature of the appeal system, the appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her is not allowed even if he/she is dissatisfied with the reasons for the appeal system (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Da529, Nov. 8, 1983; 84Nu325, Dec. 24, 1985). Therefore, the appeal of this case by the plaintiffs against the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is unlawful, and it is not of the nature that can correct, and thus, it cannot be dismissed.

2. We examine each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor and Defendant litigation performer.

(1) As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant:

With respect to No. 1:

Since the amount of compensation for losses to the land to be expropriated constitutes an integral part of the adjudication on land expropriation, even in cases where it is deemed that there is an error only in calculating the amount of compensation as a result of the review of the appeal litigation on the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, the court shall revoke the entire adjudication and shall not revoke the compensation amount separately from the part of the disposition. In the same view, the decision of the court below that revoked the entire adjudication disposition by the defendant in this case is just, and there is no error of law as to the misapprehension

With respect to the second ground:

In calculating the amount of compensation for land expropriation, it may normally be anticipated that the result of the appraisal (the amount of compensation) may vary depending on the criteria and methods of the appraisal. Thus, as long as the court has deliberated on an appeal litigation against the disposition of land expropriation, and concluded that the selection of the principle of compensation assessment is illegal, barring any special circumstance to deem that the calculation of compensation itself was appropriate despite such mistake, the court may determine the illegality of the adjudication disposition itself and revoke it, and in such a case, it shall not be necessarily required to compare the amount of compensation in the adjudication by examining the compensation amount according to the legitimate criteria and methods.

The court below's revocation of the defendant's disposition of adjudication on the ground of illegality in the choice of the principle of appraisal of compensation amount is just and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or lack of reasoning.

(2) As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers:

According to Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, where land is expropriated in an area where the standard land price is publicly announced under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article, the standard land price shall be based on the amount of compensation. However, according to Article 29 (1) through (3) of the Act, the standard land price shall be publicly announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation (paragraph (1) of the same Article), but the target land price shall be publicly announced in advance (paragraph (2) of the same Article), if the Minister of Construction and Transportation intends to publicly announce the standard land price, the area of the standard land shall be publicly announced in advance, and the standard land price shall be determined to be determined by the standard land price per unit of the same area as of the date of public announcement (paragraph (3) of the same Article, but the standard land price shall be determined to be determined as the standard land price per unit of another area which is publicly announced under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article, and the standard land price of the reference land shall be determined as the standard land price per unit of No. 2 of another area of the standard land.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the standard land price of this case was publicly announced as the target land area, but the standard land price was not publicly announced or legitimate land price was not publicly announced. Nevertheless, in making a ruling on the real estate of this case, the defendant requested an appraisal to the new land appraisal office and the Hansung Joint Office on the premise that the target area of this case was the area publicly announced land price under Article 29 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and each appraisal agency's appraiser in receipt of such request made an appraisal on the compensation amount of the target area of this case based on the standard land price, although the standard land price was publicly notified but the reference land price was not selected, and the defendant determined the compensation amount of the real estate of this case based on each assessment result. The judgment of the court below is just in light of the above legal opinion, and in this case, it cannot be accepted as a theory of compensation amount based on the standard land price of the neighboring area.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)