beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following supplementary judgments as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Supplementary judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Designation of cultural heritage and cultural heritage protection zone for Seoul related to restrictions on the designation of cultural heritage protection zone, and land compensation project for private land in the above C were identical to the subject, purpose, etc., and the instant project (land compensation for private land within the cultural heritage zone) was scheduled at the time of the designation of cultural heritage protection zone. Therefore, the designation of cultural heritage zone and cultural heritage protection zone for the instant land should be deemed to be limited under the public law, which is directly aimed at the implementation of the instant project. Therefore, the assessment for compensation for the instant land should be conducted by presenting the state without such restriction. 2) Development was limited for a long time for more than 40 years due to the fact that the instant land was designated as a park area around 1971 as a non-top land. Accordingly, it is against the good faith principle to receive disadvantages from the appraisal on the ground that it was designated as a non-top Class 1 land.
B. 1) Determination 1) Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provides that “The land subject to restrictions under public law shall be assessed according to the state of restriction, provided, however, that where the restrictions under public law directly aim at the implementation of the relevant public project, the said restrictions shall be assessed by considering the state in which there is no restriction.”