(a) A book to calculate the normal market price of similar neighboring land by applying the comparative value of the local factors and individual factors after deducting the development gains and the change rate of land price from the price of transaction cases, which is not the normal market price of similar neighboring land (negative);

(b) In cases of adjudication of expropriation, the officially announced price was not publicly announced, but, in cases of adjudication of expropriation, the standard price (publically announced price) of the objection, if the officially announced price, which was the basic date before the adjudication

A. The normal market price of similar land to be expropriated shall be determined by the case of transaction, which belongs to the neighboring similar area of the land to be expropriated, and the natural and social conditions, such as the utilization status and the specific use area, etc. at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, should be similar to the land to be expropriated. The development gains should not be opened, but be speculatively formed in normal transaction, other than the neighboring land. As long as the case of transaction is not the normal market price of the similar land in the vicinity, the development gains and the price fluctuation rate during the period should be deducted from the price, and even if the calculation is made by applying the comparison rate between the local factors and the individual factors, it cannot be said that the objective and appropriate calculation of the normal market price of the adjacent land is not appropriate.

B. Since the officially announced value shall take effect on the basis of the basic date, in case where there exists a public announcement of the officially announced value, the evaluation or compensation at the time of the price shall be calculated on the basis of the officially announced value, and even if there was no public announcement of the officially announced value in the case of adjudication of expropriation, if the public announcement of the officially announced value was made in the case of adjudication of expropriation and the basic date was made before the date of adjudication of expropriation, the adjudication of expropriation shall be made on the basis of the officially announced value

A. Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12781 of Aug. 18, 1989); Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of Apr. 1, 1989); Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4730 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 766) 90Nu1094 delivered on May 24, 1991 (Gong191, 176)

Park Tae-tae (Attorney Lee Jae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorneys Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu9645 delivered on January 16, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the instant objection ruling

1. The judgment of the court below

A. The instant land owned by the Plaintiff (192m2, 357m2, 357m2, 357m2, 257m2, 357m2, 257m2, 357m2, 200) is a corporate entity, and the Defendant Korea National Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) filed an application for adjudication for expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Committee”). The Defendant made a ruling of expropriation on October 19, 1989, and the Plaintiff filed an objection on April 18, 199 upon the Plaintiff’s objection.

B. In light of the purport of Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter “Public Notice Act”), Article 5 of the Addenda of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 8 of the same Act, the calculation of compensation for losses arising from the expropriation of land in an area where the officially announced land price was publicly announced shall be based on the standard land price under Article 46(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (hereinafter “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and the standard land price deemed to have similar usefulness to the expropriated land in consideration of the factors stipulated in Article 6(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, unless there are special circumstances. If the officially announced land price or the officially announced land price of the selected standard land is not publicly announced, it shall be based on the standard land price under Article 29(2) of the Act on the Management and Public Notice of Lands.

C. As to the land of this case, the officially announced land price under the Publication of Land Price Act was not publicly announced until October 19, 1989, when the expropriation ruling was made.

D. In order to make the instant objection, the Defendant Committee requested a new appraiser's office (hereinafter referred to as "new appraiser's office") to appraise the instant land and a general appraiser's office (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary appraiser's office") on October 19, 1989. (1) In calculating the reference land which is the standard for appraisal of the instant land, it did not explain that the land was used as the reference land in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, but it did not have any explanation on what constitutes the standard land price, and in the ordinary appraisal, it is difficult to predict that the officially announced land price was used as the reference land price for the instant land. However, it is difficult to view that the public land category is the first 180,000 representative appraiser's office (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary appraisal"), and the real situation is whether it is the reference land price or not, or whether it can be considered as 160,000 representative land price as the reference land price in Seoul, Nowon-gu, and it can not be considered as 196,28.2).

2. As to the selection of the reference land

According to the appraisal report No. 12, No. 12, the appraisal report of the ordinary appraisal report, the officially announced land value of which is 150,000, is as follows: land category in the public register is the answer or actual land category of 180,000, and the above 165-4, where the land category in the public register or actual land category of 180,000, and all the answer are the answer; however, the rate of land price change is 1.0494, and the answer is 1.0849, and the land price change rate applied to the land in this case is 1.0489. Thus, the standard land category selected by the ordinary appraisal report can be easily known that it is 1.65-4, and therefore, it cannot be said that it is unclear which land is a reference land.

In addition, according to the appraisal report No. 11, the land in this case is evaluated pursuant to the provisions of Article 9(1) and (2) of the Public Notice of Values Act and Article 17 of the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment, and it is based on the actual state of use regardless of the land category in the public account, and the appraisal report of the light appraisal is also indicated to the same purport as Eul No. 12, and there is also a selection of the reference land which is deemed to have the most similar usefulness to the land in this case. Thus, it cannot be said that the ground for the selection of reference land was not disclosed.

3. As to whether it is unlawful in applying the land price fluctuation rate

As above, it is clear that both appraisals are assessed on the basis of the officially announced land price pursuant to Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act and the officially announced land price law, and that they are assessed on the basis of the entries in the No. 11 and 12 of the No. 11. The officially announced land price under the Land Price Disclosure Act is not the publicly announced land price (price) base date but the following.

The assessment report of the ordinary appraisal (No. 12) states that the officially announced price of the standard land is as of July 1, 1989, and the assessment report of the ordinary land (No. 11) states that the officially announced price of the standard land is as of February 20, 1986, but it states that the officially announced price of the standard land is from July 1, 1989 to October 19, 1989 that the rate of the land price changes is expressed as of October 20, 1986.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the above two appraisal were erroneously applied the land price fluctuation rate.

4. If so, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as stated in the above 2.3, and there is a good reason to point this out.

As to the amount of compensation calculated by the court below

1. The court below determined that the appraisal of the land of this case, among the expert lectures of the court below, should be conducted in order to determine the compensation amount, and all matters to be considered should be taken into account, and that it was reasonable in view of the transaction cases of neighboring similar land, and that the reasonable compensation amount was calculated based on this.

2. According to the appraisal report out of the appraisal report of the court below, the appraisal of the land of this case was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 46 and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Utilization of National Territory, Article 4 of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Land, etc., and the price calculated based on the standard land price was assessed as 170,653 won per square meter, while the appraisal price of the land of this case was assessed as 170,653 won per square meter, although the sale price of similar land of this case was not known, among the land located in the district adjacent to the business district, the case was assessed as 906,600 won per square meter in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was calculated as 00 won per square meter in accordance with the reasonable price rate of the land of this case.

3. However, the normal market price of similar land to the land to be expropriated shall belong to a neighboring similar area of the land to be expropriated, and the natural and social conditions, such as the utilization status and specific use area, etc. at the time of the land category or the ruling of expropriation, should be similar to the land to be expropriated, and the development gains should not be opened, but should be the price formed in normal transactions, other than speculation, and if the time of the transaction is eight months after the date of the ruling of expropriation as in this case, it shall not be taken into consideration without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu4730, Jan. 15, 1991; 90Nu1094, May 24, 1991).

However, according to the appraisal report among the appraisers in the court below's appraisal report, the land in this case is a natural green area, the land is located in the farmland area, the use of the land is closed, the street condition is an illegal form. The land in this transaction case is a residential area, the use of the land is located in the housing area, the use of the land is a residential area, the land is adjacent to the residential area, the form is adjacent to the field, and the time of the transaction is similar to the square, and the time of the transaction is eight months after the date of the expropriation decision, and it is included in the development gains. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to calculate the normal transaction price of the neighboring land. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to calculate the normal transaction price of the neighboring land based on this, after deducting the development gains from the above transaction price and the price fluctuation rate for the surrounding land, and even if it was so doing, it cannot be said that objective and appropriate calculation of the comparative values of various factors

4. Furthermore, according to Article 46 (2) of the Public Notice of Land Price Act, compensation for land shall be the amount appraised on the basis of the public notice of land price under the Public Notice of Land Price Act in consideration of various matters from the basic date to the adjudication date. Article 4 of the Public Notice of Land Price Act provides that the public notice of land price as of the basic date shall be made every year. Article 9 of the Public Notice of Land Price Act provides that the appraisal of land shall be made on the basis of the public notice of land price. Article 10 of the Public Notice of Land Price provides that compensation for the purchase, expropriation, and use of land shall be made on the basis of the public notice of land price. Since the public notice of land price is effective after the basic date of the public notice of land price, if there is no public notice of land price after the basic date of the public notice of land price, the appraisal or compensation at the time of the public notice of land price shall be made on the basis of the public notice of land price after the basic date of the public notice of land price. Even if there was no public notice of land price.

5. However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, 2 (Official Notice), the Minister of Construction and Transportation publicly announced the officially announced price of the land of all the whole country on July 1, 1989, with the reference date for the public notice (price) as of December 30, 1989. Thus, the court below determined that the normal price of neighboring land is an arm's length price of neighboring land based on the transaction cases of land which is not the officially announced price, and that the appraisal is appropriate in consideration of the above, is unlawful. The reasoning of the judgment below is with merit.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)