The criteria for determining significant profits in the event that the remaining site area is less than the construction permit area as a result of the urban planning project.

In the event that the remaining area of a site is less than the construction permit area as a result of the road expansion construction project according to the urban planning, the determination of the price increase or the existence of a significant profit, which serves as the basis for imposing the beneficiary's charges, should be made by taking together the location, shape, the distance from the road where the urban planning project has been implemented, and the surrounding circumstances, etc. should be determined by considering the location, shape, use of the land, the distance from the road where the urban planning project

Article 66 of the Road Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu104 Delivered on July 11, 1978

[Defendant-Appellant] 1 and 3 others

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 78 Gu1 delivered on November 26, 1980

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below is hard to find that the above 20-meter (27 square meters) of the project implementation price of the 1st 7th e-mail of the above 4th e-mail of the plaintiffs' e-mail and the above 1th e-mail of the 0th e-mail of the above 7th e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the 20th e-mail of the above 7th e-mail of the 20th e-mail of the 7th e-mail of the land, and the above 4th e-mail of the 7th e-mail of the above e-mail of the 0th e-mail of the 0th e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the above 7th e-mail of the 5th e-mail of the 7th e-mail of the 5th e-mail of the above land.g., the appraisal price of the above 4th e-mail of the e-mail.

However, according to the records, if the standard for the appraisal of the above land was 1,40,00 won at the time of commencement of the project, or 2,90,00 won at the time of completion of the project, or 160,000 won per square meter at the time of completion of the project, and 80,000 won per square meter at the time of completion of the appraisal, which is 160,000 won at the time of completion of the project, cannot be determined by the appraisal of the above 40,00 won at the time of the appraisal of the above land, and the above appraisal of the 40,000 won at the time of completion of the project at the time of the appraisal, it is difficult to believe that the above appraisal of the 40,00 won at the time of completion of the project at the time of the appraisal of the above 10,000 won at the time of the appraisal of the above land at the time of the appraisal of the above 40,000 won.

Then, with regard to the fact that the remaining area of the land of this case cannot be deemed to have been remarkably benefited since it falls short of the building site area under the Building Act, according to the contents of the appraisal report (No. 4-4) prepared by the defendant as the basis for the imposition of the charges of this case, the land of this case was assessed as the central roadside commercial zone in consideration of its location, street network, and usage. Thus, the determination of the increase in the price of the land of this case or the existence of significant profit can not be said to have been remarkably reduced in utility value because it falls short of the building site area under the construction site area under the Building Act in the form of flat water only, and it cannot be said that the land of this case was remarkably reduced in utility value due to the considerable fall short of the building site area under the form of the building site area. However, even though it was necessary to comprehensively examine and determine the location, form, and use of the land of this case, the distance from the road where the urban planning project was implemented, and surrounding circumstances, the remaining area of this case is below the building site area.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the right of explanation, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the incomplete hearing, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court, which is the court below, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)