[1] The case holding that the land before the division is inappropriate as the standard land which is the basis for the calculation of compensation amount

[2] Criteria for the selection of reference land, which serves as a basis for calculating the amount of compensation

[3] Whether it is legitimate to compare and assess individual factors on the premise that the land which became a blind land by dividing it into the pertinent business (negative)

[1] In selecting the reference land which serves as the basis for calculating compensation for the land, the case holding that it is inappropriate as the reference land where part of the part of the reference land, such as the land in this case, is expropriated, since the land in this case selected as the reference land as the reference land in the appraisal considerably exceeds the appropriate area and its actual usage and value differing from those of the front and rear part toward the road

[2] The reference land which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation must be selected, taking into account the characteristics such as the land category, use, surrounding environment, location, etc., and the natural and social conditions of the reference land should be the same as or most similar to the land subject to expropriation, and the reference land cannot be deemed as having any similarity than the other reference land merely because the reference land is a land before partitioning, and that the reference land is considerably far away from the land subject to expropriation

[3] In a case where the land becomes a master land by dividing it into an urban planning project, if an appraisal is conducted on the premise that the relevant land among individual factors is a master land for street conditions while comparing it with the relevant land and the reference land for the appraisal, such appraisal is unlawful in light of the circumstances arising from the division by the relevant project in comparison with individual factors, and thus, it is unlawful.

[1] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9(1) 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 (the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 460 of December 21, 1989) / [2] Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 9(1) 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 (the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 460 of December 2

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1377 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 134) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13752 delivered on April 27, 1993

(1) Any person who is a party to a contract shall be liable for damages or losses.

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu36928 delivered on August 25, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

For the selection of reference land

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in selecting the reference land which serves as the basis for calculating compensation for the land of this case, the court below determined that it is inappropriate to select the reference land as the reference land in Guro-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), which was selected as the reference land in appraisal that served as the basis for calculating compensation for the land of this case, if only part of the back portion of the reference land of this case is expropriated as the reference land of this case due to the difference in the actual use and value of the front and rear part of the road, and the actual use and value of the front and rear part of the road of this case, as the reference land of this case. In light of the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of the reference land of this case from among the reference land publicly announced in the area where the land of this case is located, as prescribed in Article 46 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 4, 9, 10, and 17 (No. 21, 1989) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.

Although the above reference land is located far from the land of this case, the reference land of appraisal, which forms the basis for the calculation of compensation amount, is more similar because the land of this case was divided, at the time of the ruling of this case, since the reference land of appraisal, which forms the basis for the calculation of compensation amount, is more similar to the land of this case, or the reference land which is the basis for the calculation of compensation amount, must be selected in consideration of the land category, use, surrounding environment, location, etc., and the natural and social conditions should be considered, and the reference land which is the basis for the calculation of compensation amount should be the same as or most similar to the land of this case, and the selection of reference land cannot be said to have any similarity than other reference land merely because the reference land is the land before the division of the land of this case, and that there is a considerable difference from the land of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

With respect to the comparison of individual factors

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the land in this case became a master land by dividing it into an urban planning project, which is a project in question, and that the appraisal, which is the basis for calculating the amount of compensation at the time of the decision of this case, was assessed as open on the premise that the land in this case among individual factors, is a master land, while conducting a fluoring bridge between the land in this case and the reference land, and that the appraisal in this case was unlawful since it was erroneous in taking into account the circumstances arising from the division due to the relevant project in comparison of individual factors. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision is just, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension

2. In addition, according to the records, the appraisal by the non-party to the original judgment based on the calculation of the amount of compensation shows that the appraisal by the non-party to the original judgment is appropriate for the comparison and assessment of individual factors and the application of the comparison and assessment thereof. In so doing, it cannot be deemed that there were errors by comparing the items on the surface of the earth or by unfairly applying the comparison and assessment in some items

There is no reason to discuss the issue.

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)