Whether an appraisal and assessment without any reasonable explanation concerning the comparison of individual factors is illegal (affirmative)

If each appraisal corporation, which served as the basis of the judgment on the objection, did not explain any reasons as to how to compare the factors specifically in comparison with the individual factors, it is illegal if the appraisal corporation did not explain the factors.

Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 2-10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3539 Decided April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1512), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7801 Decided October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2730), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8722 Decided September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 295), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu11524 Decided January 25, 1994 (Gong194, 838), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3060 Decided September 5, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3412)

Plaintiff 1 and nine others (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu1670 delivered on July 26, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that all appraisal and assessment by the state appraisal corporations and new appraisal and assessment corporations, which form the basis of the judgment of the objection of this case, did not explain the factors specifically in comparison with the individual factors, and the judgment of the court below was unlawful because they did not explain any reasons, and there is no error of law in the incomplete hearing or in the misapprehension of legal principles as discussed. There is no reason to discuss.

The Second Ground of Appeal

According to the records, the court below's decision to recognize the use of the land at the time of the decision to expropriate the land of this case as a sand dry field or sand tideland and to derive the 0.2 of individual factors from this basis is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the calculation of compensation for losses of the expropriated land, or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)