A. Whether the normal market price of neighboring land should be taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation for land expropriation pursuant to Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (affirmative); and the scope of the court’s deliberation

(b) The meaning of normal transaction price of similar neighboring land;

A. Article 46(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483 of Dec. 31, 1991) and Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act do not necessarily stipulate that the normal market price of similar neighboring land should be taken into account in calculating the compensation amount for the land to be expropriated. Thus, it cannot be said that the calculation of compensation amount should be taken into account by examining whether there are normal transaction cases of neighboring similar land and the normal market price of neighboring land. However, only if there are normal transaction cases of neighboring land and the transaction price is proved to have an impact on the adequate assessment of compensation amount, it may be taken into account, and there is no obligation to take into account the value

(b) The term "normal transaction price of neighboring similar land" means the price of land located in the neighboring land to be expropriated, which is formed in an ordinary transaction, not speculative transaction, but identical or similar to natural and social conditions, such as specific-use area, utilization, land category, land register, form, legal restrictions, etc.;

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8562 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3308). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2397 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 1179) delivered on August 18, 1992 (Gong192, 271)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Jung-gu et al.)

The Central Land Tribunal and one other (1) Defendants, Kim Jong- Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu8093 delivered on April 8, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

Article 46 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4483, Dec. 31, 191) provides that compensation for the land shall be based on the officially announced land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) and shall be the amount appraised in consideration of the use plan of the land in question, the rate of land fluctuation in neighboring land unrelated to the region concerned, the wholesale inflation rate, and other matters. Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act provides that the price of the land to be expropriated shall maintain a balance between the price of the land in question and the officially announced land price of the reference land in question, on the basis of the officially announced land price of one or more reference land and two or more reference land prices recognized to have similar utility values, and that the normal transaction price of the adjacent land shall not be always considered in calculating the compensation amount in case of calculating the compensation amount of the land to be expropriated pursuant to the above provision.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the price of the land to be expropriated in this case by rejecting the portion of consideration of the transaction price of the above land and adopting the portion not taking into account the price of the above land as a result of appraisal by the appraiser of the court below, considering that the land of this case and the land of this case, including Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (No. 1 omitted) and (No. 2 omitted), which are cited as a normal transaction case of similar neighboring land to be considered in assessing the compensation amount of the land of this case. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle,

In addition, with respect to the land in the lawsuit which is listed as similar land in the appraisal document of the appraiser, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the transaction value may affect the adequate appraisal of the compensation amount of the land of this case without showing the above appraisal document. In such a case, the court below cannot be said to have a duty to consider the price of each of the above land by actively examining whether the transaction value may affect the adequate appraisal of the compensation amount of the land of this case. Thus, there is no error of incomplete deliberation like the theory of lawsuit, on the ground that the court below did not take such measures. The precedents of the lawsuit are nothing more than those of the cases prior to deletion of Article 29(5) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of National Territory or those different from the contents of this case. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.