[1] The method of selecting the reference land where the land subject to expropriation is located within the urban planning zone

[2] Whether the selection of the reference land is unlawful merely because the reference land is considerably far away from the land subject to expropriation (negative)

[3] Whether a special-purpose area alteration under the Urban Planning Act is an administrative disposition (affirmative), and whether a person may seek the revocation of an adjudication at the time of filing a lawsuit on the grounds of its illegality and at the time of subsequent adjudication of acceptance or objection (negative with qualification)

[4] The case where normal transaction cases or compensation cases of neighboring similar land can be considered in calculating the amount of compensation for land expropriation

[1] Where a land is located within an urban planning zone, it is reasonable to select a specific-use area as a reference land to be applied to the same land, barring any other special circumstances, in view of the impact of the specific-use area on the formation of the price of the land. Even if there are somewhat differences in the situation of the use of the reference land and the surrounding environment, such differences may be considered in light of the nature of the land, such as analysis of regional factors or individual factors.

[2] It cannot be said that the selection of the reference land is unlawful merely because the reference land is considerably far away from the land subject to expropriation.

[3] The alteration of specific-use area under the Urban Planning Act is an administrative disposition, which is independently subject to administrative litigation. Thus, in the stage of adjudication of expropriation or objection after the period for filing a lawsuit has expired, a revocation of adjudication may not be sought on the ground of illegality of the alteration disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the alteration of specific-use area is void automatically.

[4] In full view of the relevant laws and regulations as to the calculation of compensation amount for land expropriation, if there is a case where neighboring similar land was traded or compensated and the price thereof is proved to have an impact on the assessment of compensation amount, it may be considered, although the reasonable compensation amount for the land to be expropriated is not necessarily to be taken into account in calculating a fair compensation amount for nearby similar land.

[1] Article 4 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108, Dec. 29, 1995); Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [2] Article 4 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108, Dec. 29, 1995); Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [3] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [4] Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act; Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8722 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2905), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21972 delivered on June 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2115) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu137 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 134 delivered on May 14, 1996), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14350 delivered on May 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 189), 90Nu971 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong192, 3299No94969 delivered on September 26, 199) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu9394979 delivered on December 36, 1995

Kim Jong-o (Attorney Choi Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu1723 delivered on June 21, 1996

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 light of the impact of land to be expropriated within an urban planning zone on the price formation of land, it is reasonable to select a specific use area as the reference land applicable to the same land, barring any other special circumstances. Even if there are somewhat different points in the situation of the use of the reference land and the surrounding environment of the reference land for domestic affairs and the land, such points should be taken into account from fluencies, such as analysis of regional factors or individual factors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu872, Sept. 14, 1992; 93Nu21972, Jun. 24, 1994; 92Nu1377, Nov. 13, 1992; 95Nu14350, May 14, 1996). The selection of the reference land cannot be said to be unlawful merely on the ground that the reference land is considerably away from the land to be expropriated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu145350, May 14, 1996).

In addition, the change of specific-use area under the Urban Planning Act is an administrative disposition, which is independently subject to administrative litigation. Therefore, in the stage of adjudication of acceptance or objection after the period for filing a lawsuit has expired, the cancellation of adjudication can not be claimed on the ground of illegality of the above change disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the change of specific use area is void automatically.

According to the records, since there is no circumstance to deem that the disposition of change of specific use area of the land of this case is void as a matter of course, the court below's determination that the specific use area was legitimate, although the distance from the land of this case is considerably far away from the land of this case as the reference land located within the natural green area, it is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the selection

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, each appraisal agency's appraisal based on the calculation of compensation amount in the objection ruling of this case is recognized to be sufficiently aware of how to specify and specify the regional factors and individual factors in comparison with the reference land of this case and how to take into account the factors in relation to the comparison of goods and reference land of this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that each appraisal agency's appraisal based on the objection ruling of this case is legitimate, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating compensation amount, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground

3. On the third ground for appeal

In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 17(1) and (6) of the Appraisal and Assessment Regulations, etc., the calculation of compensation for losses in the expropriation of land shall be based on the case of normal transaction of neighboring similar land, although the reasonable compensation for the land to be expropriated is not necessarily to be taken into account in the calculation of compensation for the land to be expropriated, the case in which neighboring similar land was transacted or has been compensated, and where it is proved that the price would have an impact on the adequate assessment of compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu6921, Feb. 9, 1993; 92Nu19521, Jun. 22, 1993; 9Nu1324, Jan. 25, 1994).

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that since the land cited by the plaintiff as compensation cases cannot be deemed as neighboring similar land to the land of this case, the compensation cases for the above land cannot be considered in calculating the compensation amount of the land of this case, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, etc. It is without merit

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)