(a) Methods for calculating compensation for expropriation of land in an area where the standard land price is publicly notified;

B. Whether the amount calculated by deducting the transfer income tax from the normal market price should be compared in determining whether the adjudication compensation price is a reasonable price (negative)

(a) The standard price shall be calculated on the basis of the expropriation compensation amount for the land within the area where the standard price is publicly notified, but the reasonable price shall be calculated without any omission, considering the specific and comprehensive factors, such as the normal transaction price of nearby similar land set forth in Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory; and

B. In determining whether the adjudication price is a reasonable price, the amount calculated by deducting the transfer income tax to be borne by the seller from the normal market price is not necessarily to be compared with the adjudication price.

Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu128 delivered on December 8, 1987, 88Nu8647 delivered on December 27, 198, and 88Nu2496 delivered on May 23, 1989

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu819 delivered on November 17, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant:

According to Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), 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), and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the standard land is expropriated in an area where the standard land is publicly notified, the amount of compensation shall be based on the publicly notified standard land price; however, the standard land price shall be determined based on the rate of change in the land price of the neighboring area, increase in wholesale price, normal market price of neighboring land, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree from the date of the public announcement of the target land price to the time of the determination of the compensation amount; see Article 29(5) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 198; hereinafter referred to as the “former Land Expropriation Act”).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's judgment of this case was unlawful on the ground that each appraisal of the above two joint offices based on the land price fluctuation rate of 113,151,250 won and the new land appraisal company's joint offices based on the determination of the land price of this case is 150,000 won or 200,000 won per annum, but it cannot be deemed that the standard price did not reflect the normal market price of all adjacent similar lands in the area where the standard price is publicly notified or the method and degree of reflecting the normal market price of all adjacent similar lands in the area where the standard price is publicly notified. The defendant's judgment of this case was made on the ground that the above determination of this case was made on the ground that the above legitimate assessment was made on the ground that the above two joint offices did not reflect only the land price fluctuation rate of land price and the individual factors (the comparison of the standard price with adjacent similar lands) price of neighboring land, and it did not err in the judgment below's determination that the above appraisal price of this case was less than the above 75 meters.

In addition, in judging whether the adjudication price is a reasonable price reflecting all factors of price calculation, such as normal market price of similar similar land, it is not always required to prepare for the adjudication price after deducting the transfer income tax to be borne by the seller from the normal market price. Therefore, it is not possible to employ an argument about this point. In addition, there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or lack of reasons in the judgment below. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)