2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The real estate owned by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, the Nonparty, and Plaintiff 5 were incorporated into the project district indicated below: The title of “public works” in the table ‘title” under the implementation of the implementer indicated below, and the real estate indicated below ‘real estate in the column of “property to be expropriated” was accepted. The following Table â…………………‘ As for each public works, the approval of each public project was made on each date indicated below â……………………………………………’’ the announcement date of project recognition, and each project implementer paid compensation, as described below â…………………………

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 사업인정고시일 수용 부동산 공익사업의 명칭 사업시행자 보상금 (원) 원고 1 2007. 6. 7. 강동구 고시 제2007-24호 강동구 명일동 산 6 명일동 공영주차장 건설사업 서울특별시 강동구청장 2008. 3. 7. 39,817,500 원고 2 2002. 11. 30. 강동구 고시 제2002-98호 강동구 천호동 472-27 천호동 시설녹지 조성공사 서울특별시 강동구청장 2003. 9. 15. 33,599,990 원고 3 2008. 3. 27. 서울시 고시 제2008-90호 강동구 천호동 111-5 천호동 55-217간 도로개설공사 (5차) 서울특별시장 2009. 1. 13. 223,000,000 소외인 2002. 3. 30. 강동구 고시 제2002-25호 강동구 암사동 산 59-2 암사동 공영주차장 건설사업 서울특별시 강동구청장 2003. 11. 6. 10,141,500 원고 5 2002. 11. 30. 강동구 고시 제2002-98호 강동구 천호동 472-34 천호동 시설녹지 조성공사 서울특별시 강동구청장 2003. 9. 1. 11,800,000

B. At the time, the Plaintiffs and the Nonparty were registered as residents at the domicile indicated in the “resident registration slip” column, and the buildings owned by Plaintiffs 1, 2, and Nonparty were not permitted.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 수용 부동산 허가 여부 주민등록지 원고 1 강동구 명일동 산 6 무허가 강동구 명일동 (이하 생략) 원고 2 강동구 천호동 472-27 무허가 강동구 천호동 (이하 생략) 원고 3 강동구 천호동 111-5 허가 마포구 성산동 (이하 생략) 소외인 강동구 암사동 산 59-2 무허가 강동구 암사동 (이하 생략) 원고 5 강동구 천호동 472-34 허가 강동구 상일동 (이하 생략)

C. The above plaintiffs and the non-party applied for the special supply of national housing in Gangdong-gu, and the above plaintiffs and the non-party acquired a special supply house located in the Gangseo-gu area supplied by the defendant from the defendant as follows. On April 22, 2009, the plaintiff 4 succeeded to all the rights and obligations regarding the sales contract concluded between the defendant and the non-party from the non-party, and obtained approval from the defendant on the same day. The plaintiffs acquired the ownership of each special supply house after the payment of the sale price in full.

본문내 포함된 표 수분양자 특별공급신청 희망지구 변경신청 계약일 주택의 표시 분양대금 (원) 원고 1 2008. 7. 7. ？ 2009. 4. 14. 강일지구 5단지 506동 (이하 생략) 354,096,000 원고 2 2003. 11. 2005. 3. 17. 2008. 11. 26. 강일지구 10단지 1006동 (이하 생략) 330,311,000 원고 3 2008. 10. 30. ？ 2009. 5. 26. 강일지구 7단지 708동 (이하 생략) 326,476,000 소외인 2004. 4. 14. 2005. 3. 17. 2009. 4. 16. 강일지구 8단지 804동 (이하 생략) 345,517,000 원고 5 2003. 9. 15. 2005. 3. 17. 2009. 2. 27. 강일지구 6단지 604동 (이하 생략) 333,331,000

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10, 11, 12, 15 through 18, and 20 (including paper numbers)

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiffs purchased each of the instant special supply housing from the Defendant as the relocation measures under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”). According to Article 78(4) of the Public Works Act, the costs of establishing the basic living facilities are borne by the project implementer and not charged to the migrant. However, the Defendant calculated the sale price to the Plaintiffs, including the cost of creating the basic living facilities in the same way as the general buyers while selling each of the instant special supply housing to the Plaintiffs. Since the part of the cost of creating the basic living facilities out of the sale price of the said sale contract becomes invalid, the amount equivalent to the cost of creating the basic living facilities out of the sale price

3. Determination

A. Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act provides that "a project operator shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, for persons who are deprived of their base of livelihood due to the implementation of public works (hereinafter referred to as "persons subject to relocation measures")," and Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that "the contents of relocation measures shall include basic living facilities at an ordinary level, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities and other public facilities in the resettlement area (including a housing complex constructed by the implementation of relocation measures), and the costs necessary therefor shall be borne by the project operator: Provided, That where a project operator, other than an administrative agency, establishes and implements relocation measures, local governments may partially subsidize the expenses." Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that "when a project operator intends to establish relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "resident subject to relocation measures"), he/she shall notify a person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter referred to as "person subject to relocation measures") or a person subject to relocation measures of at least 10 (hereinafter referred to relocation measures shall be excluded:

1. The owner of a building constructed without obtaining a building permit or filing a report thereon;

2. The owner of a building who has not resided continuously in the building concerned from the date of public notification, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the public works until the date of concluding the contract or the date of expropriation ruling: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where he has not resided in the building due to medical treatment due to diseases, enlistment

나. 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정 증거 및 을 제14호증의 기재를 종합하면, 원고 1, 2, 소외인 소유인 각 수용 건물은 그 수용 당시 허가를 받지 아니한 사실, 원고 3은 2008. 1. 14. 서울 마포구 성산동 214-70 엘지아파트 1층 (이하 생략)로 전입하여 그때부터 계속하여 위 아파트에 주민등록상 주소지를 두고 있는 사실, 천호동 55-217간 도로개설공사(5차)에 관하여 2008. 3. 27. 사업인정고시가 있은 사실, 위 원고는 2008. 10. 30. 서울특별시장에 위 원고 소유의 서울 강동구 천호동 111-5외 2필지 및 그 지상 건물에 관하여 용지매매계약을 체결한 사실, 소외인은 1974. 8. 26. 서울 강동구 암사동 △△△로 전입하여 2004. 4. 6. 같은 동 ▽▽▽로 전입할 때까지 계속하여 위 암사동 △△△에 주민등록상 주소지를 두고 있는 사실, 암사동 공영주차장 건설공사에 관하여 2002. 3. 30. 사업인정고시가 있은 사실, 위 원고는 2003. 11. 6. 강동구청장에 위 원고 소유의 서울 강동구 암사동 산 59-2 지상 건물에 관하여 매매계약을 체결한 사실, 원고 5는 1995. 10. 13. 서울 강동구 상일동 476 명일중앙하이츠아파트 1동 ◁◁◁호로 전입하여 2003. 5. 20. 같은 아파트 1동 ▷▷▷호로 전입할 때까지 계속하여 위 아파트에 주민등록상 주소지를 두고 있는 사실, 천호동 시설녹지 조성공사에 관하여 2002. 11. 30. 사업인정고시가 있은 사실, 위 원고는 2003. 8. 19. 강동구청장에 위 원고 소유의 서울 강동구 천호동 472-34 지상 건물에 관하여 매매계약을 체결한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 공익사업법 제78조 제1항 에서 ‘주거용 건축물을 제공함에 따라 생활의 근거를 상실하게 되는 자’를 그 요건으로 규정하고 있는 점, 동법 시행령 제40조 제3항 제1호 에서는 ‘허가를 받거나 신고를 하고 건축하여야 하는 건축물을 허가를 받지 아니하거나 신고를 하지 아니하고 건축한 건축물의 소유자’를, 제2호 에서는 ‘당해 건축물에 공익사업을 위한 관계 법령에 의한 고시 등이 있은 날부터 계약체결일 또는 수용재결일까지 계속하여 거주하고 있지 아니한 건축물의 소유자’를 이주대책대상자에서 제외하도록 규정하고 있는 점을 알 수 있으니, 원고 1, 2, 소외인은 허가를 받지 아니한 건물이 철거되어 이주대책자의 제외사유에 해당하고, 원고 3, 5는 이 사건 공익사업을 위한 관계 법령에 의한 고시 등이 있은 날부터 계약체결일 또는 수용재결일까지 그 소유의 건축물에 계속하여 거주하고 있지 아니하였다고 할 것이며, 공익사업법상 이주대책 제도는 거주자가 생활의 근거지를 상실하는 것을 본질적인 요건으로 하고 있다고 할 것이므로 위 원고들 및 소외인의 지위를 승계한 원고 4는 공익사업법 및 동법 시행령에서 정한 이주대책자에 해당한다고 할 수 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the plaintiffs are those who take measures for resettlement as stipulated in the above law are without merit.

C. In addition, the plaintiffs' act of the head of the Gu who is a project executor to confirm and notify a person subject to relocation measures is an administrative disposition, and the plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs were specially supplied national housing from the defendant, but the issue of whether an administrative agency's act is deemed an administrative disposition cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is an act that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people as a law enforcement with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority, and is an act that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. In light of the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the purport thereof, whether the act satisfies the requirements of administrative disposition in the subject, content, form, procedure, etc. of the administrative disposition, the actual relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties such as the other party, and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the relevant act, etc., it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' special supply of national housing has the nature of administrative disposition.

In addition, Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act provides that a project operator shall establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act by recognizing a person who will lose his/her base of livelihood as a person who provided a residential building due to the implementation of a public project operator as a person subject to relocation measures, and Article 40(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that the owner of an unauthorized building shall, in principle, be excluded from a person subject to relocation measures. Thus, the scope of a person subject to relocation measures under the above Act and the

However, it is allowed for a project operator to establish and implement standards for expanding the scope of a person subject to relocation measures as prescribed by the above laws and regulations, and there is a limitation that the relocation measures, etc. are not against equity with the view of restoring migrants to their original living conditions while ensuring their human lives at the same time.

Examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it was examined earlier that the Plaintiffs were not those subject to relocation measures under the Public Works Act, and even if the Plaintiffs were notified of the subjects of special supply of national housing under the “Rules on Special Supply of National Housing to the Removal Residents in Seoul Special Metropolitan City,” such notification cannot be deemed as effective as administrative disposition to determine that they are those subject to relocation measures under the Public Works Act.

D. Furthermore, as to whether the Defendant is a project implementer obligated to return unjust enrichment, a project implementer shall install basic living facilities at the ordinary level for settlement sites under Article 78(4) of the Public Works Act and bear the expenses. Article 81(1) of the Public Works Act provides that “A project implementer may entrust the following institutions with the affairs concerning compensation or relocation measures.” Article 4(1) of the Act provides that “a public institution under Article 4 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions or a local government-invested public corporation under the Local Public Enterprises Act that has expertise in compensation affairs and is prescribed by Presidential Decree,” and Article 43(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that “an entity shall be entrusted with the duty to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant pursuant to Article 81(1)7 of the Act.” Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Public Enterprises Act provides that a project implementer shall be entrusted with the duty to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant for relocation measures or the duty to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant, which falls under any of the following subparagraphs.”

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim fixed-soo (Presiding Judge)