[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Lee Dong-hwan, and New Awards and Decorations

The Korea Land and Housing Corporation which is a lawsuit taken over by Korea Land Corporation.

Sungnam-si Seoul Metropolitan Government 217

Seo-gu Daejeon District Headquarters 1380 Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

Second Class of the Representative;

Law Firm Han-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Na-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. It is confirmed that the obligation of the plaintiffs to sell the proceeds in accordance with the sale contract for the housing sites of migrants in the area of housing site development in the Daejeon-gu Do for the plaintiffs in the attached Table 2 to the defendant, the amount stated in the "paragraph 6 of the attached Table 2" does not exceed the amount stated in the "paragraph 6 of the legitimate unpaid sales proceeds" column of the "paragraph 6 of the attached Table 2."

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 shall be borne by the Defendant.

A. The Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City is incorporated into the project district of the Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, Seosan-dong, Seosan-dong, Seosan-dong, Jungdong, 6, 112, and 017 square meters in the name of the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party who was the party.

The approval was granted, and the alteration was approved on September 6, 2005 of the designation of a prearranged area for housing site development (the third amendment), and the implementation plan was approved on January 6, 2006 (the first amendment), and on April 5, 2007, the alteration of the designation of a prearranged area for housing site development (the fourth amendment) and the alteration of the plan for housing site development (the second amendment) was approved on November 9, 2007, and the approval was granted on November 31, 2007 (the fifth amendment), the alteration of the designation of a prearranged area for housing site development (the third amendment), the alteration of the plan for housing site development (the fourth) and the alteration of the implementation plan (the first amendment). On December 31, 2008, the designation and alteration (6j), the alteration of the housing site development plan (the second amendment) and the second amendment (the second amendment) were approved.

B. The defendant, as the housing of the plaintiffs (the residents within the development zone of the housing site of this case or the persons who succeed to the rights and obligations from the buyers) is incorporated into the housing site development project district of this case, as part of the relocation measures against the plaintiffs who have lost their living base due to the expropriation of their owned housing or land, entered into a sales contract with the plaintiffs for the housing site of this case as part of the relocation measures against the plaintiffs who have lost their living base, and entered into a sales contract with the plaintiffs on May 19, 2008 on the housing site of migrants within the housing site development zone of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "housing site of this case").

C. The plaintiffs concluded each sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract in this case") with the agreement to sell each amount stated in the column of "the total sale price" in the separate sheet 1 and 2 list, and paid each amount stated in the column of "the already paid amount" as stated in the above list 5.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of each of the plaintiffs' lawsuits listed in the separate sheet No. 1

ex officio, of the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking confirmation that the plaintiffs' obligation for each purchase price based on the unit sale contract of this case against the defendant as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 list No. 6 of the separate sheet No. 1 does not exist in excess of the amount stated in the separate sheet No. 1 list No. 6 of the separate sheet No. 1, is legitimate. The above plaintiffs were ordered to pay stamp fees from the presiding judge of this court on November 30, 2009, but did not correct it. Thus, the above part of the lawsuit of this case's claim for confirmation is unlawful because it did not attach stamp under the law to the complaint.

3. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims listed in the attached list 2

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs

In selling the instant housing site to the Plaintiffs, the law that served as the basis for the sale by the Defendant is the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the “former Public Works Act”). Under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, the sale price applicable to the person subject to relocation measures should be calculated as only the ownership price of the housing site and the cost for creating the housing site as an element. However, the Defendant concluded a sale contract at a price exceeding the ownership price of the housing site and the cost for creating the housing site. Since the sale price of the instant housing site is null and void as the part corresponding to the difference between the ownership price of the housing site and the cost for creating the housing site is not subject to the obligation of the Plaintiffs to pay each excess amount to the Defendant.

2) Defendant:

In establishing relocation measures, Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act that contains costs necessary for the installation of basic living facilities in a project district shall apply only to the creation and supply of a settlement site outside the project district, and otherwise, Article 13-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18147, Nov. 29, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall not apply to the sale of a housing site under Article 40 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6916, May 29, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18039, Jun. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 13-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act shall not apply to the sale of a housing site under Article 8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree.

B. Determination

1) Whether the instant sales contract was effective

A) Relevant legislation

The former Public Works Act;

Article 78 (Formulation, etc. of Relocation Measures)

(1) Any project operator shall formulate relocation measures or pay resettlement subsidies, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, for persons who lose their base of livelihood due to the provision of residential buildings due to the implementation of public works (hereinafter referred to as "persons subject to relocation measures"), for the relocation of such persons.

(4) Relocation measures shall include the basic living facilities according to the relevant local conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities, in the resettlement area, and the expenses incurred therein shall be borne by the project operator: Provided, That if any project operator other than an administrative agency establishes relocation measures, the local government may subsidize part of the expenses.

Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act

Article 40 (Formulation and Implementation of Relocation Measures)

(2) Relocation measures shall be established where the number of persons who desire to move to a resettlement settlement area among those subject to relocation measures is not less than 10: Provided, That where a project operator supplies housing sites or houses to those subject to relocation measures pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the Housing Construction Promotion Act (including light rain supplied by a project operator as a broker), the relocation measures shall be deemed to have been established.

Article 41 (Payment of Resettlement Subsidies)

Where a project operator falls under any of the following subparagraphs pursuant to Article 78 (1) of the Act, he shall pay a resettlement subsidy to a person subject to the relocation measures under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation:

2. Where a person subject to measures for resettlement intends to move to another area other than the land for resettlement and settlement;

Enforcement Rules of the Public Works Act

Article 53 (Relocation Subsidies, etc.)

(1) The term "inevitable causes as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation" in Article 40 (2) of the Decree means the following causes:

1. Where there is no land suitable for the development of housing sites in the vicinity of a zone where public works are performed;

2. Where expenses required for the relocation measures become virtually difficult to implement the relevant public works due to the formulation of relocation measures, such as the amount exceeding the expenses required for the original purpose of relevant public works;

United States of America Housing Development Promotion Act

Article 18 (Supply of Housing Sites)

(1) Any person who intends to supply the housing site shall obtain approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to the Presidential Decree.

(2) The usage of the housing site to be supplied under the provisions of paragraph (1), the procedures and methods for the supply, persons subject to the supply, and other matters concerning the public supply conditions shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(3) In supplying a housing site to be used as a construction site for national housing under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the operator may set the price thereof below the development cost of the housing site.

Enforcement Decree of the Gu Housing Site Development Promotion Act

Article 13-2 (Method, etc. of Supply of Housing Sites)

(2) The supply of a housing site shall be made by lot at the price determined in advance by the operator: Provided, That the housing site falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be supplied by competitive bidding:

1. Housing sites to be used for profit such as sales facilities and sites; and

2. Housing sites other than construction sites for collective housing constructed with approval for a project plan under the provisions of Article 33 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (excluding cases where the operator determines necessary for the stabilization of land prices and for public purposes);

(4) In determining the price in advance by the implementer pursuant to the provisions of the main sentence of paragraph (2), the price may vary by area for the purpose of urban development and smooth supply and demand of housing sites by use.

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2), in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, a housing site may be supplied by free contract: Provided, That in cases where a housing site is supplied pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 4, if the quantity applied for the supply exceeds the quantity planned in the housing site development plan, it shall be done by drawing lots:

4. Where a housing site of the scale as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation is supplied to a person (limited to the case where the area of the relevant land is more than the area as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation in the case of the Seoul Metropolitan area under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act, and including the case where any goods or rights falling under Article 3 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects are owned prior to the public announcement date under Article 5 (2); hereinafter the same shall apply in this Article) who has transferred to a project executor all of the lands within the planned area (in the case of the Seoul Metropolitan area under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act, limited to the case where the whole land is acquired from the previous owner of the land in the planned area,

B) Determination.

The relocation measures under the former Public Works Act provide land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public projects to the migrants who lose their base of livelihood. It is individually provided with the cost of relocation. It is a system prepared by the State's active and policy consideration to restore the previous living conditions to the migrants at the same time by guaranteeing a living worthy of human beings. In light of the legislative purpose of relocation measures under the former Public Works Act and the purpose of bearing the cost of the installation of basic living facilities under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, it is difficult for the project implementer to distinguish the cost of relocation measures under the proviso to Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act from the project district. Considering the fact that the project implementer bears the cost of installation of basic living facilities under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, if it is interpreted differently on the ground of the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act, it is difficult for the Defendant to establish a separate plan for relocation measures under Article 78(4) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act to apply the Housing Site Development Promotion Act to the project implementer.

Meanwhile, the sale price of a housing site and the construction cost of a housing site should be imposed on migrantss. Among them, the construction cost of a pure housing site (such as cutting and embankinging construction cost), substitute farmland creation cost, substitute afforestation cost, large-scale restoration cost, exclusive charges, etc., and the construction cost of a pure housing site that is not a public facility site should be deemed to be included in the construction cost of a pure housing site.

The defendant asserts that Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act shall apply to this case, and even if there is no legal basis to include the direct and indirect expenses, it shall be calculated based only on the cost supply area in calculating the price of the housing site and the cost of creating the housing site, including direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, and other direct and indirect expenses. However, if it is based only on the supplied area, it is against the purport of Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act that requires the business operator to bear the cost of installing the basic living facilities corresponding to the free supply facility pursuant to Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is not reasonable.

2) The reasonable sale price to be paid by the Plaintiffs

A. The construction cost of KRW 20, KRW 40, KRW 40, KRW 20, KRW 40, KRW 40, KRW 50, KRW 20, KRW 40, KRW 40, KRW 40, KRW 200, KRW 40, KRW 70, KRW 40, KRW 50, KRW 40, KRW 40, KRW 153, KRW 97, KRW 40, KRW 20, KRW 40, KRW 40, KRW 461, KRW 50, KRW 40, KRW 20, KRW 40, KRW 50, KRW 40, KRW 50, KRW 40, KRW 157, KRW 330, KRW 169, KRW 169, KRW 179, KRW 57, KRW 30, KRW 40, KRW 57, KRW 40, KRW 97, KRW 40, KRW

However, the Plaintiffs filed the instant claim on the premise that the aggregate limit of the possession price of housing site per square meter (294, 179 won) and the cost of creating housing sites (153, 527 won) is 447,706 won ( = 294, 179 won + 153, 527 won). As such, the Plaintiffs filed the instant claim on the premise that the Plaintiffs shall pay to the Defendant as claimed by the Plaintiffs.

(4) Paragraph (4) of attached Table 2 shall be the amount stated in the column of "reasonable selling price".

3) Non-existence of an obligation for the sale price exceeding a legitimate sale price

As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs listed in the attached list 2 did not actually pay the amount indicated in the column 5 of the above list as the sale price under the contract of this case by June 30, 2009, and thus, each of the sale price obligations of the above Plaintiffs under the sale contract of this case does not exceed the amount indicated in the column 6 of the above list 6, and as long as the Defendant raised an objection, the above Plaintiffs are able to seek confirmation of non-existence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is unlawful, all of them are dismissed, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, it is to accept them.

Judges Blue Blux

Judges Park Young-chul

1. Kim Madle (451219 - 1)

Seo-gu Daejeon District Court:

Other 219 persons

List 1

A person shall be appointed.

List 2

A person shall be appointed.