(a) Whether only the land appraiser can conduct the appraisal of the land located within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced;

B. Purport of Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

A. In a case where the court orders a land appraisal in accordance with the necessity to deliberate the case, if the land subject to the appraisal is located within the publicly notified area, it cannot be deemed that the land appraisal should be assessed by the land appraiser and that the appraisal by the public appraiser under the Act on the Appraisal and Assessment should be excluded.

B. The purport of the provision of Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall be to calculate the amount of compensation for expropriation for the land within the area where the standard land price is publicly announced, but it shall be interpreted that the reasonable price should be calculated by reflecting all the factors in which the standard land price is determined in detail and comprehensively taking into account the factors cited in the above provision.

Articles 29-2 (1) and 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu415 delivered on January 24, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu393 delivered on June 23, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

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

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1226 delivered on December 30, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 29-2(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory provides that a land appraiser shall be appointed to assess the land price and other rights to purchase or expropriate within the area where the standard land price is publicly notified, in order to assess the land price in accordance with the provision of Article 29-2(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory. Thus, even in a case where the court orders a land appraisal, if the land price subject to the appraisal is within the publicly notified area, it shall be assessed by the land appraiser and the appraisal by the certified land appraiser shall be excluded (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu415, Jan. 24, 1984). Thus, it is groundless to point this out.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that each appraisal price for the land of this case in advanced and Chang Chang Chang Land Appraisal Co., Ltd., which is the basis for calculating the compensation price of this case, was calculated by taking into account the various factors specified in Article 29(5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory in the evaluation process, and it is not clear the basis for calculating the appraisal price. Furthermore, even though there are examples of transactions in which buildings purchased 116 square meters in the land of Incheon City ( Address 1 omitted) which can be seen as neighboring land of this case before the expropriation ruling of this case, each appraisal price of this case is not considered as normal market price of similar land of this case, and each appraisal price of this case is obviously unlawful in light of the above appraisal price of the non-party (the non-party's appraisal price per 90,500 square meters per square meters per square meters) which is the reasonable and reasonable appraisal price of the land of this case.

According to Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the standard land price shall be determined on the basis of the standard land price in cases of expropriation of land for which the standard land price is publicly announced, but the land price at issue shall be determined on the basis of the standard land price from the public announcement date of the target land price to the determination date of the compensation amount, the price fluctuation rate of neighboring land unrelated to the relevant area, wholesale inflation rate, the normal market price of neighboring similar land, and other matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The purpose of this provision is to calculate the compensation amount for expropriation of the land within the area in which the standard land price is publicly announced, but the standard land price shall be determined on the basis of the standard land price, and the reasonable price shall be determined by reflecting all the factors specified in the above provision by taking into account the specific factors for calculation and comprehensive consideration. Meanwhile, according to Article 49 (1) 3 of the Act, the normal market price of neighboring similar land stipulated in Article 29 (5) of the Act refers to the price not formed as speculative land

However, according to the records, the appraisal value of the non-party is calculated as 12,00 won per square meter at the normal market price at the time of expropriation of the land of this case. 41,578 won per square meter, which is the price calculated by multiplying the standard land price by the rate of increase in wholesale prices and the rate of change in circumstances, and 28,816 won per square meter, which is the price calculated by multiplying the standard land price by the rate of increase in wholesale prices and the rate of change in circumstances. However, it is unreasonable to consider the surrounding circumstances at the time of expropriation of the land of this case which is considerably changed compared to the standard land price at the time of announcement, so it cannot be said that the appraisal value of the above land of this case is calculated by taking into account the normal market price of the above land of this case into account the above 9,168 won per square meter, which is the standard land price of the reference land of this case, and the appraisal price of the above land of this case can not be determined as the reasonable appraisal price of the above land of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the ruling of this case was unlawful on the ground that this case's appraisal price is less than the reasonable appraisal price which takes into account all the matters stipulated in the above Article of the Act, by deeming the appraisal price of the non-party appraiser of the court below as the appraisal price is less than the reasonable appraisal price, since it erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 29 (5) of the Act on the Utilization and Management

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)