(a) Whether the provisions of Article 12-3 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices are invalid as there is no delegation of higher law;

(b) Whether ex officio cancellation for determining the price of an individual land may be made, where the calculation of the individual land price is clearly erroneous due to a mistake in the selection of comparative standard land;

A. In a case where there is an obvious error in land price calculation, such as a mistake of land characteristics investigation or a mistake in the calculation of land price, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may correct it after deliberation by the local land appraisal committee, but in a case of a minor matter, the provisions of Article 12-3 of the Guidelines on the Joint Investigation of Land Price (amended by the Prime Minister Directive No. 248 of April 2, 191) that it may not undergo deliberation by the local land appraisal committee cannot be deemed as invalid because there is no delegation by the superior law.

B. Price determination for individual land also constitutes an administrative disposition, and the disposition agency which originally made an administrative disposition can cancel it ex officio without any separate legal basis, in principle, in case where there is a defect in the act, and it is not possible to cancel it ex officio even after the statutory objection period against the administrative disposition expires. Thus, the disposition agency may cancel it ex officio if there is an obvious error in the calculation of the individual land price for the land, and as if there is an obvious error in the calculation of the individual land price for the land in Article 12-3 of the Guidelines on the Joint Investigation of Land Price of Land, the disposition agency may cancel it ex officio if there is an obvious error in the calculation of the individual land price for the land, and as if there is an obvious error in the calculation of the land price for the individual land due to a mistake in the selection of comparative standard, ex officio cancellation for the individual

(b)Article 12-3(b) of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (amended by the Prime Minister Directive No. 248 of April 2, 1991); Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general]

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3582 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1986, 550) 85Nu664 delivered on February 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 19566 delivered on June 14, 1994)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu32148 delivered on April 11, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant, on August 31, 1990, publicly announced the price of individual land per 1990 square meters per m2,30,000 won per m2. However, on July 26, 1994, when the above determination was made, the court below determined that the above individual land price was cancelled ex officio pursuant to Article 12-3 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Price (amended by Prime Minister Directive No. 248 of April 2, 1991) and that the above individual land price should be corrected ex officio, and that the above specific use area, specific use district, land category, land use, road conditions, accessibility to convenience facilities, and harmful facilities were identical to the previous and the new standard land price newly selected based on the officially announced land price of the new standard land and announced the correction of the price per m2,500,000 won per m2, it did not have any obvious error or error in the above provision of the Act as an enforcement of the Act.

2. The head of a Si/Gun/Gu may correct the land price calculation, such as errors in land characteristics investigation or other errors in miscalculations, after deliberation by the local land appraisal committee, but if it is a minor matter, the provisions of Article 12-3 of the above joint investigation guidelines that the local land appraisal committee need not undergo deliberation. (See Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3582 delivered on April 28, 1995.) The price determination of individual land is also an administrative disposition. The disposition agency which originally issued an administrative disposition can cancel it ex officio without any legal basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu664 delivered on February 25, 1986.) If there is a defect in the act, the disposition agency which originally issued an administrative disposition can cancel it ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu664 delivered on February 25, 1986. Thus, if there is an obvious error in the calculation of individual land price of this case, the defendant can cancel it ex officio.

3. The price of individual land is determined by the method stipulated in Article 10 of the Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the method stipulated in Article 9 of the Act, by which an appraisal business entity is deemed to have the value similar to the land to be appraised in a lump sum within a certain period, and by comparing specifically the factors affecting the objective value of the land, such as the location, topography, environment, etc. with one or more reference land or two or more reference land to be appraised in accordance with the method stipulated in Article 9 of the Act, and the so-called comparison standard land price is not to be determined, which is deemed to have the value similar to the land subject to land price survey and calculation, and the land price is calculated by multiplying the land price by the price adjustment rate calculated by comparing the characteristics of the reference land and the land price to the land subject to calculation, which is the standard comparison table, by using the price comparison table, which is the standard comparison table on the price factors of the land subject to appraisal. Meanwhile, it is clear that the determination of the standard land price of the individual land subject to appraisal is the most similar to the standard price comparison.

Therefore, as shown in Article 12-3 of the above Joint Investigation Guidelines, if there is an obvious error in the calculation of land prices, such as a mistake in or a mistake in land characteristics, it shall be deemed possible to correct the decision, even if the determination of individual land prices is clearly erroneous due to a mistake in the selection of a standard for comparison, it shall be deemed that the revocation of ex officio for the determination of individual land prices may be possible pursuant to the provisions of Article 12-3 of the above Joint Investigation Guidelines. The judgment below is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for correction under the above Joint Investigation Guidelines, or by misapprehending the nature of the standard land and the legal principles as to the selection thereof, as pointed out. The judgment on party members pointing out the issue,

4. All arguments are without merit, 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 on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)