[1] Method of assessing the amount of land expropriation compensation subject to restrictions under public law

[2] The case holding that the amount of compensation for expropriation shall be assessed on the basis of the specific use area as a quasi-residential area, in case where the specific use area is reverted to the production green area because it did not make a public notice of cadastral approval while designating the land whose specific use area was changed to a quasi-residential area from the production green area as a planned green area upon the determination of alteration of urban planning, since the above restoration

[1] According to the relevant provisions such as Articles 46 and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses, where the land is subject to restrictions under public law in calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the land expropriated, it shall be evaluated as a matter of principle in a limited state, but where the restriction is directly aimed at the implementation of the relevant public project, it shall be evaluated on the premise that there is no restriction in order

[2] The case holding that the amount of compensation for expropriation shall be assessed on the basis of the specific use area as a quasi-residential area, in case where the specific use area is reverted to the production green area because it did not make a public notice of cadastral approval while designating the land whose specific use area was changed to the quasi-residential area from the production green area as a planned green area upon the determination of alteration of urban planning, since it falls under the

[1] Articles 46 and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act / [2] Articles 46 and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5543 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2796), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu7570 delivered on November 12, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 102), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7386 delivered on March 3, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1622), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13879 delivered on April 11, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 180; 94Nu13725 delivered on November 7, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3920), Supreme Court Decision 9Du93989 delivered on September 29, 198 (Gong1998Sang, 199)

[Judgment of the court below]

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Yoon Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu35424 delivered on January 16, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the land subject to expropriation belongs to the plaintiff's original green area, it was changed to a quasi-residential area of 42,00 square meters on December 31, 1991 by the Gyeonggi-do Notice No. 493. The Governor of the Gyeonggi-do ordered to promote the development of the land on the side of defendant Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Si") by public development. Accordingly, the court below found the land subject to expropriation of this case to be illegal after the lapse of 97 days from July 21, 1992 to be subject to the public notification No. 93 of the previous 90 square meters of land under the premise that the land subject to expropriation of this case was subject to expropriation of this case on the condition that the land subject to expropriation of this case was not subject to the public notification No. 196 after the lapse of 190 square meters of land under the premise that the land subject to expropriation of this case was subject to expropriation of the previous 193 square meters of land.

2. According to the relevant provisions such as Articles 46 and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 6(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Land Expropriation Act, where the land is subject to restrictions under public law in calculating the amount of compensation for losses incurred to the land expropriated, it shall be evaluated in principle as limited, but where such restrictions are directly aimed at the implementation of the public project in question, it shall be evaluated on the premise that there is no restriction in order to eliminate the impacts on the public project in question and realize

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the change of the specific use area into the quasi-residential area as of December 31, 1991 to the land of this case constitutes the designation of the prearranged area of the housing site development and the restriction on general planning conducted prior to the implementation of the housing site development project, and its objection constitutes the designation of the prearranged area of the housing site development in this case and the evaluation of its compensation amount under the premise. In light of the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as the designation of the prearranged area of the housing site development upon the request of the defendant at the time of the subsequent application and the completion of restoration of the specific use area due to the lack of the announcement of cadastral approval, it shall be deemed that the specific use area of the land of this case is a green production area as of January 1, 1994, rather it shall be deemed that it constitutes the restriction imposed for the direct implementation of the housing site development project of

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the amount of compensation for expropriation of the land in this case should be evaluated as a quasi-residential area is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation for losses or the appraisal of land subject to restrictions in public law, or in violation of the precedents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who are appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)