[1] The method of selecting comparative standard sites

[2] Whether there is an error of law in selecting a standard for comparison only by changing the previous standard for comparison (negative)

[3] The case affirming the court below's decision that it is reasonable to apply the current status of the land used as the site for a driving school to commercial purposes other than "special cases" under the official land price investigation and calculation guidelines

[1] The comparative standard method is the most reasonable method to select the land from among the reference land located in the vicinity where the land and the specific use area, land category, land use (actual use), surrounding environment, location, and other natural and social conditions are similar.

[2] As long as a suitable standard land is selected as a comparative standard, there is no error of law in selecting a comparative standard land only with the change of the previous standard land.

[3] The case affirming the court below's decision that considering the fact that the total area of the land used as the site for the driving school is somewhat small size, but the driving school is established and operated in a small-scale city, it is difficult to apply the "special other" to the case where transaction cases are rare or difficult to measure rare values as the land of a relatively large scale lot according to the guidelines for investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price, it is reasonable to apply the current status of the land used as the site for the driving school for commercial purposes in light of the fact that the transaction cases are applied to the case of the land of a relatively large scale lot, and that the

[1] Articles 4, 5, 9, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 10 (1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 1997), Article 8-2 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1551 of Nov. 19, 197) / [2] Articles 4, 5, 9, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 10 (1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5409 of Aug. 30, 197), Article 10 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15511 of Nov. 19, 199), Article 19-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3442 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2813), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu9096 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1469), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu636 delivered on December 8, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 133), Supreme Court Decision 99Du5542 delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1671), Supreme Court Decision 9Du7968 delivered on March 27, 201 (Gong201Sang, 102) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 9Nu1949429 delivered on March 28, 195 (Gong2945 delivered on March 29, 194)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The astronomical Market

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Gu4911 delivered on September 10, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the selection of comparative standard site is illegal;

The comparative standard is the most reasonable method to select the land from among the reference land located in the vicinity where the land and the specific use area, land category, land use (actual use), surrounding environment, location, and other natural and social conditions are similar (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu636, Dec. 8, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that although the reference land of the same specific use area in the neighboring area and the same area within the same entitlement to the land of this case is located in Seoan-si ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), ( Address 3 omitted), ( Address 4 omitted), and ( Address 5 omitted), the above ( Address 3 omitted) land is different from the current use or surrounding area of this case as industrial use, and each land of the above ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 5 omitted) is located in the neighboring area, but goes beyond the scope of similar price rights, the above ( Address 4 omitted) land is located in the neighboring area, but its surrounding environment is different, and the above ( Address 2 omitted) land is located in the neighboring area, and the specific use area or surrounding environment is most similar to other reference land, the defendant's measure that was selected as a comparative standard for the above ( Address 2 omitted) land is legitimate.

Examining in light of records, relevant statutes, and the above legal principles, such determination by the court below is just, and so long as the standard land suitable as above is selected as a comparative standard, it cannot be said that there was any illegality in selecting a comparative standard by changing the previous standard land alone (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu12920, Mar. 28, 1995; 95Nu13494, Feb. 11, 197). Accordingly, the ground of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

2. Whether it is illegal in the survey of land characteristics;

In light of the fact that the land of this case among the land characteristics is of a certain size as the site of a driving school, but a driving school is established and operated in a small-scale city, it is difficult to apply a "special case" to a case where transaction cases are rare or difficult to measure value as land of a relatively large-scale lot according to the guidelines for investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price, and rather, it is reasonable to apply a commercial case to the land of this case in light of the fact that the land of this case is applied to a green area, gas station, golf driving range, etc. in a non-urban area as an exception to a

In light of the records and the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, we accept such measures of the court below as just and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. Accordingly, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)