(a) Methods to assess the amount of compensation for expropriation of land designated as development restriction zone before the relevant public project is implemented;

(b) A statement of the selection of the reference land located within a development restriction zone;

A. In calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land subject to restrictions in public law, it shall be assessed in the state where the restrictions in public law are imposed directly for the implementation of the public project in question. On the other hand, if the general planning restrictions have already been imposed by public notice under the Urban Planning Act, regardless of the relevant public project in question prior to the implementation of the public project in question, it shall be assessed in the state where such restrictions are being imposed. The designation of a development restriction zone under the Urban Planning Act constitutes a general planning restriction as seen above, and it is reasonable to evaluate the state where such restrictions have already been placed

(b) the reference land is located in a development-restricted zone and cannot be used as a basis for calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation;

A.B. Article 46(2)(b) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Articles 9 and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu549 delivered on May 29, 1984 (Gong1984, 1197) 88Nu11797 delivered on July 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1259) 91Nu4324 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong192, 1317)

[Judgment of the court below]

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu19080 delivered on April 28, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

While this Act enters into force from the date of its promulgation (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989), paragraph (2) provides for transitional provisions with regard to the calculation of compensation amount of the project for which approval is announced at the time of the enforcement of this Act. However, according to the records, the public announcement of the approval was made as of Apr. 30, 191 and the public announcement of the public announcement of the approval and the ruling of expropriation was made as of Dec. 17, 1991, and all of the persons who were made the public announcement of the public announcement of the project approval and the ruling of expropriation were made before the enforcement date of the above Land Expropriation Act. Thus, in calculating the compensation amount of the land of this case, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of compensation amount.

(2) On the second ground for appeal

Article 23(3) of the Constitution provides, “The expropriation, use, or restriction of property rights due to public necessity and compensation therefor shall be made by law, and a reasonable compensation shall be paid.” The reasonable compensation under Article 23(3) of the Constitution provides that the property subject to expropriation refers to the appraised value of the property subject to expropriation at the time of expropriation, and Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act provides the standards and methods for calculating the compensation amount. Accordingly, in calculating the compensation amount for expropriation of land subject to restriction under public law in light of the spirit and purport of the above Constitution and the former Land Expropriation Act, if the restriction under public law is made directly for the implementation of the relevant public project, it shall be assessed according to the state in which the restriction under public law is not imposed. On the other hand, if the general planning restriction under the Urban Planning Act has already been made prior to the implementation of the relevant public project, the designation of development restriction zones under the Urban Planning Act shall be deemed to fall under the general restriction of development restriction zones under the Urban Planning Act, and if there is such restriction prior to the implementation of the relevant public project.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below is justified in assessing the amount of compensation for expropriation of the land of this case based on the status of restrictions under public law due to the designation of development restriction zones, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the calculation of compensation amount, such as theory of lawsuit.

(3) On the third ground for appeal

In selecting the reference land, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated in this case, the court below selected the reference land in Seocho-gu Seoul as the reference land which is the land category, specific use area, surrounding environment, etc. of various reference land publicly announced in the area where the land in this case is located, and which is the most similar to the land in this case and located in the neighboring area. In light of the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the selection of reference land, such as the above reference land under Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act, Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 17 (1) of the Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (No. 460 of Dec. 2

The issue is that the above reference land cannot be the appropriate reference land because it is different from the land in this case and its location, form, administrative condition, etc., or that the above reference land cannot be the basis for calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation because it is located in a development-restricted zone. However, even if there are some differences in the location, use status, surrounding environment, etc. of the reference land and the land, these points should be taken into consideration in terms of fluences such as analysis of regional factors or individual factors (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8722 delivered on September 14, 192). Meanwhile, it is not that the reference land cannot be the basis for calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation because the reference land is located in a development-restricted zone (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5331 delivered on September 8, 192). It is not appropriate to invoke it in this case because the issue concerns other than this case.

(4) On the fourth ground for appeal

In sum, in calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation of land located within a development-restricted zone, the purport that it should be based on the actual transaction price of neighboring land located outside the development-restricted zone, or as seen earlier, in assessing the amount of compensation for the land located within the development-restricted zone, it shall be evaluated according to the condition that there is a restriction under the public law, which is the designation of a development-restricted zone. Meanwhile, in order to consider the amount of compensation for the expropriation of land located within the development-restricted zone as the “normal transaction price of neighboring land,” it shall be the price formed in ordinary transactions with respect to land that is identical or similar to the land subject to expropriation (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2397, Feb. 25, 192). Since land located inside and outside the development-restricted zone cannot be deemed identical or similar to the same in terms of statutory restrictions, it shall not be considered as the transaction price of land located outside the development-restricted zone, in calculating the compensation for expropriation of land located within the development-restricted zone.

(5) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)