(a) The criteria for calculating the amount of compensation for losses of land to be expropriated, the reference land price is published;

B. Where only the portion for calculating the amount of compensation is unlawful during the adjudication disposition by the Land Tribunal, the revocation scope of the above adjudication disposition and the hearing summary of the just amount of compensation

(a) In full view of the provisions of Article 29(1), Article 29(2), Article 3(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the standard land is publicly notified, compensation for losses should be calculated on the basis of the standard land price for each category of land to be expropriated, if the land category is a pre-determined, paddy field, site, forest, or miscellaneous land, it is not appropriate that the compensation amount should be calculated on the basis of the standard land price for the reference land for each category of land to be expropriated

B. If, as a result of a review of an appeal against a disposition of expropriation of land, the choice of appraisal methods and appraisal standards is unlawful, the court may revoke the relevant disposition of adjudication on the ground of such unlawful determination, and in such a case, it is not necessarily required to deliberate and determine the amount of compensation in accordance with legitimate assessment methods and appraisal

A. Article 29(1), Article 29(2), Article 29(3), and Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory; Article 48(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu45 delivered on July 7, 1987, 87Nu977 delivered on September 13, 1988 B. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu315 delivered on August 19, 1986

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Attorney Lee Jae-ok, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Appellant-Appellant, Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu834 delivered on February 10, 1988

All appeals shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the provisions of Article 29(1), Article 29(2), 2, 3, and (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in case of expropriation of land in an area where the standard land price is publicly announced, compensation for losses should be calculated on the basis of the standard land price for the standard land by category of land in question, field, land site, forest land, and miscellaneous land. It is not appropriate that the compensation amount should be calculated on the basis of the standard land price for the standard land by category of land which is not the standard land price, but the standard land price for the standard land in neighboring or similar areas (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu45, Jul. 7, 198; 87Nu97

Therefore, the court below's decision that the appraisal of the compensation amount for losses on the land of this case was unlawful since it was based on the standard land price, which is not a legitimate standard land price, is just and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged.

In addition, if the choice of appraisal methods and appraisal criteria is illegal as a result of an appeal litigation on the disposition of expropriation of land, the court may revoke the disposition of adjudication on such ground. In such a case, it is not necessarily necessary to deliberate and determine the amount of compensation according to the lawful assessment methods and appraisal criteria (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu315, Aug. 19, 1986). All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant's assistant intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)