A. Although the existing officially announced value was publicly announced at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, the new officially announced value was publicly announced at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, and where the basic date is prior to the date of adjudication of expropriation, the standard for calculating the amount of compensation (=new officially announced value) in

(b) Where development gains are included in the officially announced land price of the reference land due to a development project unrelated to the relevant public works, whether the standard officially announced land price shall be deemed to have been transferred or the standard land price shall be modified (negative);

C. Whether the selection of the reference land should be made according to the actual situation of use regardless of its land category on the public register (affirmative)

A. Since the officially announced value is effective on the basis of the basic date, the evaluation or compensation at the time of the price shall be calculated on the basis of the officially announced value, and even if the existing officially announced value is publicly announced at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, if the new officially announced value was publicly announced at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, and the new officially announced value was made at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, the adjudication of an objection shall be made on the basis of the newly announced officially announced official value

B. Even in cases where development gains are included due to a development project unrelated to the relevant public project, which is an object of expropriation in the officially announced land price of the reference land, the environment, conditions, etc. improved by the development project shall be considered in the process of booming with the reference land and the land to be expropriated, so such circumstance does not require a transfer of the officially announced land price or a change in the reference land

(c)the reference land which is deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question means the reference land whose actual utilization is equal or similar, regardless of its land category on the public register;

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 10 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10381 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992,204) (Gong1992,308 delivered on September 22, 1992) 91Nu838 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1993,1303). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3126 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong191,761) 91Nu127 delivered on January 17, 192 (Gong192,915)

[Judgment of the court below]

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Lee e-apap, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu6605 delivered on August 19, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the legal principles as to the decision of compensation amount or any violation of the law

2. In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Act on the Publication of Land Prices and Evaluation of Land, etc., the officially announced price shall be effective on the basis of the basic date. Thus, the evaluation or compensation at the time after the basic date shall be determined on the basis of the publicly announced officially announced price. Even if the existing officially announced price was publicly announced at the time of adjudication on expropriation, if the new officially announced price was publicly announced at the time of adjudication on expropriation and the basic date was made before the date of adjudication on expropriation, the adjudication on expropriation shall be made on the basis of the newly announced officially announced price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu2038, Sep. 24, 191; 92Nu2653, Mar. 23, 1993).

According to the records, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, after publicly announcing the officially announced land price in 1989, which was the basic date on December 30, 1989, which was the basic date on July 1, 1989, which was the basic date on which the basic date was July 1, 1989, again announced the officially announced land price in 1990, which was the basic date on January 1, 1990. Meanwhile, the adjudication date on expropriation of the land in this case was March 19, 190 and the objection date was February 23, 191. Thus, the amount of compensation should be calculated on the basis of the officially announced land price that was the basic date on January 1, 1990.

Therefore, the court below's determination of the amount of compensation for the land of this case based on the officially announced land price in 1989 is unlawful, and it is not a legitimate assessment method under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. The court below's determination that the appraiser of the court below calculated the amount of compensation based on the officially announced land price in 1990 is legitimate and justified.

3. In calculating the amount of compensation pursuant to Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, even in cases where development gains from a development project unrelated to the relevant public project, which is the purpose of expropriation, are included in the officially announced land price of the reference land, the environment and conditions improved by such development project shall be considered in the process of comparison with the reference land and the land to be expropriated, so such circumstances shall not cause the transfer of the reference land price or the change of the reference land price.

According to the appraisal report (No. 15), which is the basis for the judgment of the objection of this case, the officially announced land of the land site of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted) selected as the reference land was affected by the confirmation construction of the fire-fighting road, etc. However, it cannot be deemed that the confirmation construction of the fire-fighting road was connected with the construction of the family welfare center of Dobong-gu, which is the development project of this case, and even according to the comparison of individual factors indicated in the appraisal report of the original appraiser, the above reference land is connected to about 6 meters wide and easy access to vehicles. The land subject to expropriation of this case is compared to the non- packing rate of about 1.5 meters wide and it is evaluated as 90/100 high, and this is therefore, since the contents of the reference land in the process of comparing the environmental improvement of the specific factors by the fire-fighting road construction, it cannot be said that the legitimate disposition of the original court calculated the compensation amount of this case is unlawful.

4. According to the appraisal report by the appraiser of the court below, when comparing the land conditions (e.g., shape, paper size, size, etc.) among the individual factors of the reference land in this case and the land subject to expropriation, the ground is a slope as an illegal notification, and the area of the reference land is appropriate as a housing site with the area of 197 square meters, the land subject to expropriation is an irregular notification, and the ground is 85/100 square meters high, high, high, and the area of the ground is 80 square meters and is a general housing area, and it is assessed as 85/100 high, compared to the area of the general housing. Accordingly, it shall be deemed that the land development cost, etc. caused by the difference between the ground and the land subject to expropriation as claimed by the defendants may be more required than the standard land. Thus, there is no error in the law of the court below's protocol

5. According to Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 10(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, in calculating the amount of compensation for the land expropriation, it is necessary to maintain a balance between the price of the land and the officially announced price of the reference land based on the officially announced price of one or more reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question. In this case, the reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question refers to the reference land whose actual use is equal or similar to that of the reference land regardless of its land category (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3126, Jan. 15, 191; 91Nu127, Jan. 17, 192). According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the land to be expropriated in this case is classified as forest or actual site in the public record, it is proper to calculate the amount of compensation by selecting the reference land which is the land similar to the actual use thereof, and it is reasonable to consider the transaction of the non-party witness.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue in the opposite position.

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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)