A. Whether the method of calculating compensation is unlawful in a case where the amount of the objection raised is more than the amount of compensation lawfully calculated, or in such a case, whether the method of calculating compensation can seek a revocation of the judgment (negative)

B. The meaning of “the fluctuation rate of neighboring land” to be taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated

(c) Where normal transaction price of neighboring similar land may be considered in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated;

(d) The burden of proving that there is a meaning of normal transaction price of the similar neighboring land and a normal transaction case of the similar neighboring land and that it affects the calculation of the amount of compensation by taking these into account (=principal)

A. Even if there were errors in the appraisal and assessment, which are the basis of the adjudication on land expropriation, of which the principle or standard was mistakenly selected, in a case where the amount of compensation calculated by the adjudication on the objection is more than the amount of compensation lawfully calculated, or in the same case, the method of calculating the amount of compensation is unlawful, thereby seeking a revocation of the adjudication

B. The land price fluctuation rate of neighboring land as stipulated in Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991) refers to the land price fluctuation rate of the Gu/Si/Gun where the land to be expropriated is located, barring special circumstances. However, where there are special circumstances to deem that the land price of the Gu/Si/Gun where the land to be expropriated is located is changed due to the project in question, the land price fluctuation rate of the neighboring Gu/Si/Gun shall be considered, and the assertion that the land price has changed due to the project in question, the burden of proof is against the person who wants to apply the

C. In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 17(1) of the Appraisal and Assessment Rules (No. 460 of Dec. 31, 1989) and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the calculation of compensation for losses in land expropriation, if there are cases of normal transaction of similar similar land in neighboring areas, and if it is proved that the transaction price may have an impact on the assessment of reasonable compensation as normal and reasonable

D. In order to be called the normal market price of similar neighboring land, it shall be the price formed in ordinary transactions with respect to the land identical or similar to the land to be expropriated under natural and social conditions, such as the land category, grade, land register, form, utilization status, specific use area, and statutory restrictions, which are located in the neighboring area of the land to be expropriated, not the development gains are included but the land is formed in speculative transactions. There are transaction cases that can be viewed as the normal transaction cases of similar neighboring land and that it affects the calculation of the compensation amount by considering them

(a) B.C. (d) Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 17(1) and (6) of the Regulations on Appraisal and Assessment; Article 19(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781, Aug. 18, 1989) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 26 of the Act on the Management and Management of the National Territory of the Republic of Korea (amended by Act No. 4120, Apr. 1, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7214 delivered on May 2, 1990 (Gong1990, 1376), 90Nu3058 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2297), 92Nu107 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 3155). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8562 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 309), 92Nu584 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong193, 478), 92Nu6921 delivered on February 9, 193 (Gong193, 1993, 199Nu49799 delivered on May 29, 197).

Plaintiff

The Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Ahn Young-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu8175 delivered on April 15, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In the case of appraisal which is the basis of adjudication on land expropriation, there is an error of law in selecting the principle or standard on the method of calculating the amount of compensation, even though the amount of compensation calculated in the objection adjudication is more than the amount of compensation lawfully calculated, or in the same case, the method of calculating the amount of compensation is unlawful and thus, it cannot be claimed to revoke the objection adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu107 delivered on October 13, 192).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the judgment of this case was unlawful in selecting the principles and standards for calculating the amount of compensation in various respects, such as the selection of standard land and the application of the officially announced value of land values, and that the appraisal of the same joint office of the same foreign certified public appraiser, which was the basis of the judgment of this case, was not legitimate since the amount of compensation of this case was corrected (the calculation of compensation amount without considering the transaction cases of neighboring land) as the result of correction of erroneous parts among the appraisal of the non-party by the non-party appraiser, and thus, it was not possible to seek revocation of the judgment of this case

The issue is groundless.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989 and amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991), compensation for land shall be based on the officially announced land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, but the compensation for land shall be the amount appraised by taking into account the land use plan under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or the price increase rate of neighboring land unrelated to the relevant region from the basic date to the adjudication of the basic date, and other matters. In light of the fact that the Gu/Si/Gun area of neighboring land where the expropriation is located seems to reflect the normal land price of the land which is most closely and economically than the land to be expropriated, barring special circumstances, there is a change in the land price of the Gu/Si/Gun where the land to be expropriated is located, and the burden of proof shall be taken into account to the neighboring Si/Gun to the person who wants to be expropriated as the project.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in order to calculate the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated in this case, in applying the land price fluctuation rate from the basic date to the adjudication date, the land price fluctuation rate of 6.25 percent during the entire period of Ansan-si in which the above land belongs, shall not be deemed to fall under the case where the application of the land price is to be excluded due to the change in the land price due to the relevant project, even though the land price is at the rate of land price change in the whole period of Ansan-si in which the above land belongs. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable and there

3. On the third ground for appeal

In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and Article 17(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 460 of Dec. 31, 1989) and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the calculation of compensation for land expropriation, where there are cases of normal transaction of similar neighboring land in calculating a reasonable compensation amount of land to be expropriated and their transaction price is proved to have an impact on the reasonable assessment of compensation amount as normal and reasonable, it can be considered. However, in order to make the "normal transaction price of neighboring land" as the "normal transaction price of neighboring land", it should be considered that the price formed in ordinary transactions with respect to land identical or similar to the land to be expropriated, which is not the development gains, but the price formed in neighboring transaction without including development gains (see Supreme Court Decision 9Nu8562, Oct. 27, 1992).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the amount of compensation for losses of the land to be expropriated in this case, the court below assessed the amount of compensation by reliance on the remaining appraisal results without employing the appraisal results of the parts among the appraisal of the same person, on the ground that it is difficult to see the transaction cases of the land and the site, etc. in Ansan-si ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), and ( Address 3 omitted), which are considered as the transaction cases of similar similar land, as the transaction cases of neighboring land by the appraiser of the court below.

According to the records, the transaction cases are shown to be considerably far away from the land of this case located in Anyang-dong, Anyang-si, Anyang-si, and the land of this case located in Anyang-si. Among them, the land category is the site, and the land of this case is different from the land of this case, the category of which is the site, and all the above two transaction cases can be seen to have been traded after about eight months from the date of the decision on expropriation of this case, and so it is highly likely that development gains are included. Accordingly, the above two sale cases are not appropriate to be considered as a normal transaction case of neighboring land. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the non-exercise of the right to use a name or the incomplete trial, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is groundless.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)