(a)the meaning of “business person” under Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act;

(b) The case holding that it is not appropriate to evaluate the amount of compensation in consideration of the asking price only without disclosing whether there are transaction cases of similar similar land in calculating the amount of compensation for the land within the area, the standard land price of which is publicly announced according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the

(c) In calculating the amount of compensation for losses arising from the expropriation of land, whether the development gains arising from the implementation of another project unrelated to the relevant public project shall be excluded and assessed (negative);

A. Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231, Apr. 7, 1990) provides that in a case where an administrative litigation instituted pursuant to Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231, Apr. 7, 1990) is a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, the person filing the lawsuit shall be the defendant in addition to the ruling authority if the person filing the lawsuit is a landowner or a person concerned. The person referred

B. In calculating the amount of compensation for the expropriated land within a region where the standard land price is publicly announced according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory prior to the amendment by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989, it shall be taken into account when there are transaction cases of neighboring similar land. The assessment of the amount of compensation by taking into account only the quotation is an assessment lacking adequacy without making it clear whether there are

(c) In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, the reasonable price shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without considering the approval of a plan, and the price fluctuation due to the announcement, which directly aims at the implementation of the relevant public project, but the development gains arising from the implementation of another project unrelated to the relevant public project shall

(a) Article 75-2(2)(b) of the Land Expropriation Act. Article 46 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 29 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989)

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8002 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1271) 90Nu3126 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 761) 90Nu4341 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1190) (Gong190) 88Nu1844 delivered on March 14, 1989

[Judgment of the court below]

Central Land Tribunal and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu7318 delivered on June 27, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990) provides that in the event an administrative litigation instituted pursuant to Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990) is a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, the person who files the lawsuit shall be the defendant in addition to the ruling authority in the case where the landowner or the person concerned is the landowner or the person concerned.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant, belonging to the Busan Regional Land Management Agency, who is the execution agency of the land expropriation project of this case, was lawful, is just, and there is no reason to dispute this.

On the second ground for appeal

In calculating the amount of compensation for the expropriated land within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory before the amendment by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989, it shall be taken into account if there are transaction cases of neighboring similar land, and the assessment of compensation amount by taking into account only the quotation without clarifying such transaction cases shall be deemed to lack of appropriateness (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8002 delivered on May 8, 1990). Accordingly, according to the appraisal by the non-party appraiser of the court below based on such opinion, each appraisal based on the instant ruling and each appraisal by the joint office of the fixed land appraiser of the court below based on the instant ruling of this case, even if there are similar land transaction cases, are not taken into account the neighboring similar land transaction cases, it is justifiable to determine that the instant ruling of this case is unlawful, and there is no reason to view this conclusion.

On the third ground for appeal

In calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by the expropriation of land, a reasonable price shall be determined on the basis of the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation without considering the price changes caused by the approval of a plan directly aiming at the implementation of the relevant public project, but the development gains arising from the implementation of another project unrelated to the relevant public project shall be assessed at the price not excluded (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1844, Mar. 4, 1989).

The author argues that the transaction cases cited by the appraiser of the court below should not be considered since the development gains arising from the Ulsan Urban Bus Relocation Plan, the Ulsan Urban Railroad Relocation Plan, the land readjustment project plan, etc. are included in the development gains arising from the land readjustment project plan, etc. However, since the small theory projects are other development projects unrelated to the expropriation project of this case, it cannot be deemed unlawful to consider transaction cases that include profits arising therefrom. According to the records, even though some of the transaction cases taken into account by the appraiser of this case were after the land expropriation ruling of this case, it does not affect the result of this case. There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)