(a) Where the land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act was publicly announced after a ruling on expropriation was made but the basic date is before the ruling on expropriation, the compensation amount for losses on the land to be expropriated (=the officially announced

(b) When comparing and analyzing the local factors and individual factors of the reference land and land to be expropriated in order to calculate the amount of compensation for losses, the point of time which serves as each basis

(a) Even if the land price was published under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act before a ruling on expropriation was made after the adjudication on expropriation, if the basic date is before the adjudication on expropriation, the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated shall be calculated by the appraised

(b) In appraising the price to calculate compensation for losses incurred by the expropriation of land, in order to prepare for regional factors and individual factors of the reference land and land to be expropriated, the status of the reference land as of the basic date and the status of the land to be expropriated at the time of the adjudication on expropriation shall be compared

Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 4, 9, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 17 of the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment of Lands, etc. Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2038 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2632) 91Nu10831 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 204) 92Nu6938 delivered on February 12, 1993

[Judgment of the court below]

The Central Land Tribunal et al. and one defendants' attorney-at-law

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu19970 delivered on March 19, 1992

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to the Seoul High Court on this part.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined (the grounds of appeal stated in the supplementary appellate brief that was submitted after the deadline for submitting the supplementary appellate brief expires to the extent of supplement).

1. Even if the land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) was publicly announced after the adjudication of expropriation was made before the adjudication of expropriation, if the basic date is before the adjudication of expropriation, the compensation amount for losses for the land to be expropriated should be calculated based on the land price publicly announced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu2038, Sept. 24, 1991; 91Nu10831, May 26, 1992; 91Nu10831, Oct. 26, 199). In calculating the amount of losses suffered by the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the land to be expropriated in the instant case, the adjudication of expropriation was made on Feb. 27, 199 and the decision of objection was made on Oct. 26, 190, the court below’s judgment was justified in the application of legal principles as to the officially announced land price as of Apr. 30, 1990.

2. According to Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Land Price Disclosure Act; Article 17 of the Appraisal Regulations, where an appraisal business entity or appraiser assesss the price to calculate compensation for losses incurred from the expropriation of the land in an area publicly announced by the officially announced land price, the appraisal business entity shall be based on the officially announced land price of the reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question. In addition, in order to analyze the factors affecting the objective value of the land such as the location, environment, and utilization of the reference land and the land to maintain balance between the price of the reference land to be expropriated and the officially announced land price of the reference land at the time of expropriation.

However, the court below calculated the compensation amount for losses to the land of this case by taking into account the fluctuation rate of the land price on the basis of the officially announced land price in 1990 of the land site of this case, which is the standard land which is deemed to have the value similar to the land of this case according to the appraisal result of the appraiser, and comparing and analyzing the factors affecting the objective value of the standard land and the land of this case, and considering the appraisal report prepared in writing as a result of appraisal in order to calculate the compensation amount for losses to the land of this case, the above appraiser shall take into account the fluctuation rate of the land price of this case on the basis of the officially announced land price in 1989 of the reference land of this case (the officially announced land price on December 30, 1989 as the basic date on July 1, 198) and compared and analyzing the factors and individual factors of the reference land of this case on the basis of the officially announced land price in 190, the court below calculated the compensation amount on the land of this case on the basis of the officially announced price in 1989.198.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, such as that factors affecting the objective value of the land, such as the environment and utilization status of the above reference land, have not been changed at all (in order to adopt the appraisal results of the above appraiser who appraised on the basis of the officially announced land price in 1989, the court below should first consider whether the factors and individual factors compared and analyzed by the above appraiser are the same as that of the appraisal based on the officially announced land price in 1990). The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation for damages for the land subject to expropriation or in the violation of the rules of evidence, nor did it adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, we reverse the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination as to this part. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.