(a) In the case of expropriation of land in an area where the reference land price is publicly announced, a propriety of the method of assessing the amount of compensation for loss by comparing the land to be expropriated with goods, after selecting the ratification land of the land to be expropriated on the basis of the reference land price of the reference land for that area (negative);

B. Whether the court may revoke the adjudication disposition on the sole ground that the choice of the principle for assessing the amount of compensation for the disposition of land expropriation is unlawful (affirmative)

A. In the case of expropriation of land in the region where the standard land price is publicly announced, the amount of compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price of the reference land by land category of the land to be expropriated. The compensation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the standard land price by land category of the land to be expropriated. Among the reference land for the land to be expropriated, only one of the same land category and grade shall be the same. In calculating the compensation amount for the land to be expropriated, the compensation amount of the reference land shall not be selected as ratification for the land adjacent to the region without selecting the reference land. If the compensation amount for the land to be expropriated was calculated on the basis of the reference land price of this reference land by selecting the reference land price of this reference land to be ratified and then by comparing the above reference land price of this case with the goods, etc., if the compensation amount of the land was calculated on the basis of the reference land price of this reference land to be ratified and this method shall be deemed legitimate under Article 29 (1), (2), (3), (5) and (18) of the former Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1984, Apr. 18, 198).

B. In a case where a court deliberated on a disposition of expropriation of land and found that the choice of the principle of appraisal of compensation is unlawful, despite such mistake, the assessment of compensation itself may revoke the disposition of adjudication on the sole basis of this point, except where there are extenuating circumstances deemed appropriate.

Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989); Article 48 (1) B of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu977 delivered on September 13, 1988 (Gong1988,1285) 89Nu6556 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990,1164). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10367 delivered on July 11, 1989 (Gong1989,1254) 89Nu3762 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong190,545)

Attorney Kim Sung-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Korea National Housing Corporation and the Defendant’s Intervenor Kim Jong-su, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu10574 delivered on January 24, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above 18 standard land was unlawful since the land was located within the area where the standard land price was publicly announced as of September 18, 1985 by the Construction Division No. 462, and the actual situation of the public account was the site at the time of the decision of expropriation. Each appraisal of the joint office Nos. 1 and 2, which the defendant used as the basis of the ruling of expropriation of this case, together with 9 lots, including the land of this case, 365-20, 18 standard land, including 365-20, 365, 365-20, and the appraisal value of the above 18 standard land, and the appraisal value of the above 18 standard land could not be deemed to be unlawful since the appraisal value of the above land could not be deemed to have been determined as the compensation value of the above 18 standard land after the determination of the standard land, and the appraisal value of the above land could not be determined as the compensation value of the above 192 standard land.

2. Article 29 Section 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), and Article 48 Section 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989), which provides that the compensation amount shall be calculated based on the standard price of reference land for each category of land before and after the land category, land category, land site, forest land, and miscellaneous land. It is inappropriate for the court below to determine that the compensation amount should be calculated based on the standard price of reference land for each category of land which is not the standard land to be expropriated, or the standard price of reference land in neighboring or similar areas, which is calculated based on the above determination of compensation amount for each category of land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Nu65781 of Apr. 24, 190).

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)