A. Whether a final appeal filed by a person who won a favorable judgment on the grounds of a mistake in the grounds of the judgment (=additional law)

(b) Where the standard land price at the time of adjudication of expropriation is publicly announced only in the subject area and the standard land price at the time of adjudication of expropriation is publicly announced;

A. The appeal filed on the ground that all of the claims were accepted by the lower court is unlawful as it does not have any benefit of appeal.

B. In a case where the reference land price was publicly announced at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, but the reference land price was not publicly announced, even if the reference land price was publicly announced pursuant to Article 29(3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory before the adjudication of an objection, the effect of the public notice of the reference land price does not take effect retroactively from the date of the public notice of the target land area. Thus, damage caused by the expropriation of land is calculated at the time of the adjudication

A. Article 392 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Da498 delivered on October 12, 1982, 81Nu103 delivered on March 23, 1982

Plaintiff 1 and nine others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu250 decided April 1, 1981

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

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine ex officio the plaintiffs' appeal is lawful.

The final appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, and in light of the nature of the appeal system, the final appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her shall not be allowed, and in principle, whether a judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant or not shall be determined on the basis of the text of the judgment.

However, according to the records, the court below accepted all the claims of the plaintiffs, and it is clear that the plaintiffs erred in the reasoning of the judgment and filed an appeal. Accordingly, the appeal of this case by the plaintiffs is unlawful as it has no benefit of appeal.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the standard land price for the target area was applied retroactively to August 21, 1978, and the above standard land price was determined to be applied to the land of this case, which was owned by the plaintiffs, as the defendant made a ruling of expropriation on August 16, 1979, and the plaintiffs dismissed the above objection on February 29, 1980, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation announced the target area to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Planning Zone under the Construction Part 81 of the Construction Part announcement as of August 21, 1978, and the Construction Part No. 467 of the Construction Part No. 467 of Dec. 12, 1979, and the above standard land price was determined to be the most appropriate compensation for the land of this case, because the standard land price was publicly notified before the base land price was publicly notified at the time of the ruling of expropriation, but the land price at the time of the ruling of this case was publicly notified as at the time of the ruling.

However, according to the provision of Article 29 (3) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, while the normal price as of the date of the public notice of the target area shall be examined and assessed, it cannot be deemed that the public notice of the base price becomes effective retroactively to the date of public notice of the target area, and no other ground exists to deem that the public notice of the base price becomes effective retroactively to the date of public notice of the target area. Furthermore, since the calculation of losses caused by the expropriation of land should be based at the time of public notice of expropriation as of the time of the original adjudication of expropriation, as long as the base price was public notice of the target area as at the time of the original adjudication of expropriation as at the time of the original adjudication of expropriation, and unless the base price was not public notice of the base price, even if the base price was public notice of the house price before the adjudication on the filing of objection, it cannot be calculated on the basis of the base price (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu103, Mar. 23, 1982). Accordingly, we reverse the remaining ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal incurred by the plaintiffs are assessed against the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)