The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Roads which require a project operator to provide basic living facilities to a person subject to relocation measures include roads that correspond to arterial facilities prescribed in subparagraph 8 of Article 2 of the Housing Act, i.e. roads located outside the relevant housing complex, notwithstanding their length or width (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013). Of course, roads installed within a public-service zone by a project operator, which are in charge of connecting the entrance of a housing complex, etc. within the relevant project zone and other roads located outside the relevant project zone, include those essential facilities for the achievement of functions of a housing complex, etc. and the passage of the entire residents within the project zone (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da29509, Jul. 23, 2015). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to auxiliary roads, cluster roads, and road breadth of at least eight meters among roads located within the instant project zone, and all of the State-Seoul-Seoul-do road.

2. According to the record on the construction cost of underground lanes, tunnels, bridges (rivers, etc.), the “AJ Road” whose name has been changed to the GJ Road is constructed by other private business operators than the instant project operator, but the co-implementers of the instant project, including the Defendant, bear KRW 40 billion out of the construction cost, and the Defendant “AJ Road” in addition to the construction cost related to the road.