1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s construction of a multifunctional administrative city (hereinafter “instant project”) on the ground that the entire area of a road installed in a public-service project zone and a road installed outside the relevant project zone, which is an essential facility for the achievement of functions of a housing complex, etc. and the passage of all residents therein, are included in the roads where a project implementer is required to provide the basic living facilities to a person subject to relocation measures, including roads that correspond to arterial facilities as stipulated in subparagraph 8 of Article 2 of the Housing Act, including roads that connect the same kind of roads located outside the relevant housing zone (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013).

Accordingly, it rejected the Defendant’s assertion that roads installed in urban planning roads or exclusive residential areas with a width of at least eight meters and other special-purpose areas than general residential areas are not included in roads which are basic living facilities.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope

(b) Of the traffic squares, the intersecting point of the traffic squares, shall be installed at the intersection of the congested major roads, with the purpose of enabling the smooth communication of vehicles and pedestrians; and