(a) Requirements for exercise of the right of repurchase under Article 9 of the Public Loss Compensation Act;

(b) The meaning of "reasonable amount of compensation" under Article 9 (1) of the same Act;

C. Whether Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is an invalid provision by limiting the calculation of an unreasonable redemption price without delegation of the parent law

(d) Whether the provisions of Article 71(5) of the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis or apply mutatis mutandis to the exercise of the redemptive right under Article 9 of the same Act

(e) Method of determining redemption prices under the same Act;

(f) The meaning of "land fluctuation rate of neighboring land" as stipulated in Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

A. According to Article 9 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses, a repurchase is established regardless of the project operator’s intent by unilaterally paying to the project operator the amount equivalent to the compensation that the repurchase right holder received when the requirements for the repurchase occur within the repurchase period, and by unilaterally expressing his/her intent to purchase the land, etc., even if the price of the land, etc. significantly changes compared to the time of acquisition, the repurchase is adequate, provided that the parties concerned have agreed on the amount under Article 9(3) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses and Compensation for Losses, unless the amount is determined by an agreement or

(b)"reasonable amount of compensation" in Article 9(1) of the same Act means the compensation that the owner of the land, etc. received from the project operator at the time of acquisition through consultation under the same Act, and does not mean the amount obtained by adding the statutory interest at the time of exercise of the repurchase right thereto

C. Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not constitute a provision on matters necessary for the enforcement of Article 9 (3) of the same Act, or a provision on supplement and interpretation of the same Act, which does not violate the limit of delegated legislation, and thus, it cannot be said that it unfairly limits the calculation of the redemption price without delegation of the parent law.

(d) In the exercise of a redemptive right under Article 9 of the Land Expropriation Act, the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 71 of the same Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis or apply mutatis mutandis.

E. In full view of the provisions of Article 9(1) and (3) of the same Act and Article 7(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the compensation paid at the time of exercising the right of repurchase multiplied by the fluctuation rate of similar land in neighboring land unrelated to the project in question until the time of repurchase, “if the compensation paid at the time of exercise of the right of repurchase is less or more than the amount obtained by multiplying the compensation paid by the fluctuation rate of similar land in neighboring land”, the amount equivalent to the compensation paid shall be the repurchase price, and “if the compensation is in excess of it” shall be the appraisal price at the time of repurchase, unless an agreement is reached between the parties or the amount determined by the

(f) The land price increase rate of neighboring similar land under Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act refers to the land to be repurchased and the land price increase rate of neighboring similar land which is geographically adjacent to the land to be repurchased and whose land category and land use status, etc. are similar to the land category on the public register. Thus, the average land price change rate of the entire land of the Special Metropolitan City, which belongs to

(b)(d)(f) Article 9(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss, Article 9(3)(f) of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss, Article 7(1)(d) of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss, Article 7(5) of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss, Article 71(3) of the

A. Supreme Court Decision 200Da7832 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2257), 92Da6501 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 217), 93Da2241 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2610). Supreme Court Decision 91Da19043 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong192, 1401), 92Da50652 delivered on August 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2415).

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Central Land Tribunal and one other, Defendants et al., Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Ansan-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu21571 delivered on June 25, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The repurchase under Article 9 of the Special Cases concerning the Compensation for Public Loss (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land") shall be established without connection with the project operator's intent by unilaterally paying to the project operator the amount equivalent to the compensation received by the repurchase right holder when the requirements for repurchase occur within the repurchase period. Even if the price of land, etc. is significantly changed compared with the time of acquisition, consultation between the parties on the amount under Article 9 (3) of the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land, etc., or unless the amount is determined by the adjudication of the Land Tribunal, it shall be deemed sufficient to pay in advance the amount equivalent to the compensation received in order to exercise the repurchase right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da2241, Aug. 24, 1993). Thus, the "reasonable amount of compensation" under Article 9 (1) of the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land, etc. shall be limited to the amount paid by the landowner from the repurchase right holder to the time of exercise of the repurchase right, and it shall not be limited to the provisions of Article 97 (19) of the Special Cases concerning the delegation Act.

Meanwhile, in full view of the provisions of Article 9(1) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases and Article 7(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act, the compensation paid at the time of exercising the right of repurchase multiplied by the fluctuation rate of land prices in neighboring similar land unrelated to the project in question until the time of repurchase shall be the repurchase price. "When excess of the compensation price," the amount equivalent to the compensation paid shall be the repurchase price, and the "if excess is made" shall be the amount obtained by deducting the amount calculated by multiplying the said compensation by the fluctuation rate of land prices in neighboring land from the appraised amount at the time of repurchase unless the consultation between the parties is reached or the amount is determined by the adjudication of the Land Tribunal ( =

Nevertheless, the court below held that the amount equivalent to the compensation under Article 9(1) of the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land shall be deemed as the original amount added by legal interest to the compensation, and where there is a remarkable change in the price at the time of exercise of the right of repurchase compared with the time of acquisition, it shall be redeemed at the time of appraisal, i.e., the price assessed by appraisal. Article 71(5) of the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to Article 71(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land Act, on the premise that the change in the price should be resolved through interpretation of specific cases as to whether there is a significant change in the price as it is invalid because Article 7(1) of the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Land without delegation of the mother Act limits an unreasonable calculation of the redemption price without delegation of the mother Act. Accordingly, the appraisal price of the land at this case as of June 28, 191 when the plaintiffs exercised the right of repurchase by evidence is 4.31 times (land 1) or 3.79 times (2 land).

In addition, the land price increase rate of similar similar land under Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act refers to the land to be repurchased and the land price increase rate of neighboring similar land which is geographically adjacent to the land category in the public register and the land use rate similar to the land category in the public register. Therefore, the average land price fluctuation rate of the whole land of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City which belongs to the land cannot be said to be the land price increase rate of neighboring similar land (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da50652 delivered on August 13, 1993). In light of the records, although the court below considered the appraisal rate of the Korea Appraisal Board and the Korea Appraisal Board, which are the basis of the original adjudication, as appropriate in light of the result of the records, it is unclear whether the land price increase rate was applied to neighboring land under the Land Expropriation Act, or the land price increase rate of neighboring land under the Special Act is not applied to the land price increase rate of neighboring land (the original ruling is the basis for the plaintiffs to exercise the right of repurchase in the public register and the land price fluctuation rate of the Korea.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)