[1] Methods of calculating the adequate amount of compensation for expropriation and the degree of the factors for calculating the appraisal report's price

[2] The case where normal market price of neighboring similar land can be considered in calculating the amount of compensation for the land to be expropriated

[3] The meaning of "normal transaction price of neighboring similar land" that can be considered when calculating the amount of compensation for land expropriation

[4] The case reversing the court below's decision based on the consideration of the purchase price which cannot be viewed as a normal market price of neighboring similar land in calculating the compensation amount for land expropriation

[1] In assessing the amount of compensation for land expropriation, the amount of compensation shall be determined by taking into account all price calculation factors cited by the relevant laws and regulations in detail and comprehensively. In this case, even if the detailed portion of all price calculation factors cannot be explained daily or numerically expressed the impact on the assessment of all the factors, the amount of compensation shall be described to the extent that it can be seen that the factors are specified and how the factors are considered.

[2] In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195), Article 17(1) and (6) of the Appraisal and Assessment Regulations, etc., the calculation of compensation amount for the land expropriation should be based on the case of normal transaction of neighboring similar land in calculating the compensation amount. However, if there is a case where neighboring similar land was traded or compensated and the price thereof is proved to have an impact on the adequate assessment of compensation amount, such calculation may be taken into account.

[3] The term "normal price of adjoining similar land", which can be considered in calculating the amount of land expropriation, means the price formed in ordinary transactions with respect to land identical or similar to the land subject to expropriation, such as specific use area, land category, grade, land register, form, utilization status, legal restrictions, etc., which is located in the neighboring area of the land subject to expropriation, and is not the price formed in speculative transactions, not including development gains.

[4] The case reversing the court below's decision based on the consideration of the purchase price which cannot be viewed as a normal market price of neighboring similar land in calculating the compensation amount for land expropriation

[1] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 17(1) and (6) of the Regulations on Appraisal of Lands, etc. / [2] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 17(1) and (6) of the Rules on Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [3] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 17(1) and (6) of the Rules on Appraisal

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu11524 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 838) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7801 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2730) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu872 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2905) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu11396 delivered on April 8, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1457) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19521 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2151)

Plaintiff

The Central Land Tribunal and two others (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu30484 delivered on September 26, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In assessing the amount of compensation for land expropriation, each factor of the price calculation cited by the related Acts and subordinate statutes shall be determined by taking into account the factors specifically and comprehensively, and in this case, even if the detailed portion of all price calculation factors cannot be explained daily or numerically expressed the impact on the assessment factors, the appraisal report shall state at least the price calculation factors to the extent that it can be seen that the specific factors are specified and how the factors are considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu8722, Sept. 14, 1992; 93Nu1524, Jan. 25, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that each appraisal agency's appraisal based on each objection of this case should explain specific reasons to recognize the appropriateness of its ratification in comparison with the land of this case and the individual factors of the comparison standard, but did not explain the above specific reasons. Each appraisal agency's appraisal is illegal because it has no reasonable reasons to the extent that it can guarantee the authenticity and legitimacy of its contents. In light of the records, the court below's above recognition and determination is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there are no errors in law such as violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In full view of the provisions of Article 46(2) of the current Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9 and 10 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 17(1) and (6) of the Appraisal and Assessment Regulations, etc., the calculation of compensation amount for land expropriation does not necessarily need to be taken into account in the case of normal transaction of neighboring similar land when calculating the compensation amount for the land to be expropriated. However, if there are cases where neighboring similar land was traded or compensated and the price thereof is proved to have an impact on the adequate assessment of compensation amount, it can be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu11396, Apr. 8, 1997). It cannot be accepted merely because it is an opinion that the calculation of compensation amount for neighboring similar land should not be taken into account under the current Land Expropriation Act.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In calculating the amount of compensation for losses of land expropriation, the term "normal market price of neighboring similar land" means the price formed in ordinary transactions with respect to land identical or similar to the land subject to expropriation under natural and social conditions, such as the location of the land in the neighboring area of the land subject to expropriation, such as specific use area, land category, grade, land register, form, utilization status, legal restrictions, etc., not including development gains, but not formed in speculative transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu19521, Jun. 22, 1993; 93Nu1524, Jan. 25, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the amount of compensation for losses for the land subject to expropriation of this case, the court below recognized that the sales case of the same 125 large 116 large 13 square meters and 105-26 square meters adjacent to the land subject to expropriation of this case constitutes a normal transaction case of neighboring similar land and calculated the amount of compensation of this case. The specific basis for calculating the amount of compensation was based on the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below, on the ground that it is based on the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below.

However, according to the appraisal report by the appraiser of the court below, the above appraiser is deemed to have transacted at a higher price than about 60% due to the smooth progress of redevelopment project, etc. in consideration of the fact that the sale price in the sale which is considered as a normal transaction case of the above similar neighboring land is small in the area of the land in the sale case, and the level of neighboring land prices is considered to have been settled at a higher price than 60% due to the smooth progress of redevelopment project. Thus, 60% of the circumstances correction rate is applied, the price reduction rate is deducted, and the amount is calculated by calculating and applying comparative values between local factors and individual factors, and the calculation of the compensation amount in this case is taken into account. Even according to the appraisal report itself, the above sale price amount is determined at a significantly higher price than the ordinary transaction price for the smooth progress of redevelopment project, not the ordinary transaction price of the neighboring similar land. Thus, the above sale transaction case is inappropriate as a normal transaction case of the neighboring land. Even if the price was calculated by deducting the price calculated by calculating and applying the comparative values between local factors and individual factors.

Nevertheless, the court below deemed the above sales price that cannot be deemed as the normal market price of neighboring similar land as the normal market price of neighboring similar land and calculated the reasonable amount of compensation for losses of this case by taking this into account. The court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of compensation for losses, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing

4. 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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)