In calculating the amount of compensation for land to be expropriated under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, if there is a similar land at a low price than the market price, the method of considering the successful bid price

Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989) refers to the price that is not formed in speculative transactions of land, or the price that is formed in ordinary transactions that do not include development gains, and it does not mean the price that is below the market price and brings it into the market price. In addition, even if the normal market price of similar neighboring land is taken into consideration, it should be limited to the extent of consideration, and the compensation amount always exceeds the normal market price of similar land is not the purpose of the law to calculate the compensation amount based on the prior public notice of the standard land price and standard land price of the adjacent land. Thus, even if the approximate price of similar land is below 15% of the market price, it is unlawful that the price calculated by adding 15% to the approximate price of similar land should be compared to the price of the land to the price of the land to be expropriated based on the normal market price.

Article 29 (5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of April 1, 1989)

Freeboard District Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 1, 201

Attorney Ahn Young-do, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu2702 delivered on August 29, 1989

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the dismissed portion of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

The final appeal is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, and the final appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her is not permissible. Therefore, the final appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her cannot be dismissed on the ground that the final appeal by the Plaintiff who won the whole final appeal is unlawful

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant’s attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below determined that, when the defendant makes a ruling to expropriate the land of this case within the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, the compensation price of this case was 162,50 won per square meter per square meter, but it was conducted by reducing the original compensation price of this case to the joint office of Hanyang Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "joint office of Hanyang"), and the joint office of Sam Chang Chang Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Co., Ltd.") with which the plaintiff raised an objection, the appraisal was conducted by taking 182,00 won per square meter as the compensation price per square meter, and that the above appraisal was made by taking the amount of 182,00 won which is the arithmetic average of the values of the two offices, and that the compensation price of this case was less than 90 meters per square meter per square meter per square meter per the above appraisal, the compensation price of this case should be determined as 90 meters per square meter per square meter per adjacent to the above land.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below which accepted the appraisal of the similar land of this case, the appraiser at the court below determined the above amount by adding 15% to the above amount on the ground that there was a fact that the above land was at least 15% of the market price in light of appraisal of the similar land of this case, but the above auction price at the time of expropriation is at the normal market price. It is evident that the reasonable compensation price for the land of this case is calculated by multiplying the land of this case by the rate of market price at the time of expropriation until expropriation, and further, by multiplying the fair price at the time of expropriation by the value ratio of the land of this case, the reasonable compensation price for the land of this case is no more than the market price, and even if the above auction price is lower than the market price of the above similar land, it shall not be included in the sale price of similar land at the normal market price at the time, and it shall not be included in the sale price of the land of this case at the price below the market price at the same time, which is no more than the market price at the above the above market price.

3. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and the Defendant’s appeal is with merit, and thus, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)