Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seo-gu")

2. Plaintiff 2

Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seo-gu")

3. Plaintiffs 3

Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seo-gu")

4. Plaintiff 4

Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seo-gu")

5. Plaintiffs 5

Incheon Southern-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul-gu")

6. Plaintiffs 6

Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seo-gu")

7. Plaintiff 7

The wife population (hereinafter referred to as the "population") in Young-si

8. Plaintiff 8

Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Seo-gu")

[Defendant-Appellant]

Representative Market

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence 1 to 24 (including each number), or in combination with the purpose of the whole pleadings.

A. On January 19, 2005, the daily price of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted) in which the plaintiffs resided belongs to the project to open access roads to the access road to the Songdo Knowledge Information Industrial Complex (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") with the extension from the public official of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City announced by the defendant on January 19, 2005 to the same Gu-si Amambro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City public notice No. 2005 - 11.

B. As part of the measures for resettlement of the plaintiffs who lost their residential life due to the expropriation of their owned housing or land according to the project of this case, the defendant extended the contract period to October 27, 2006 due to the filing of the plaintiffs' civil complaints against the purchase price, etc., and thereafter, on October 23, 2006, the defendant finally concluded a contract for the special supply of the apartment to the plaintiffs around October 27, 2006 for the special supply of the apartment to the non-party 4 complex apartment complex (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") which will be newly constructed and sold to the non-party 1 Incheon Metropolitan City Incheon Metropolitan City Development Corporation (hereinafter " Incheon Development Corporation") as a part of the measures for resettlement of the plaintiffs, and the defendant did not return the purchase price of the apartment of this case to the plaintiffs by October 27, 2006.

C. On January 9, 2007, the Plaintiffs entered into an apartment sale contract with the Incheon Development Corporation, which arranged by the Defendant, by setting the sales price of the apartment of this case as the amount of money indicated in the separate sheet of calculation, such as unjust enrichment in the same manner as the general sale price in the apartment of this case.

D. Meanwhile, at the time of concluding each of the above sales contracts, the Plaintiffs paid 28,900,000 won as down payment to the Defendant, respectively (Provided, That Plaintiff 8 paid 26,580,000 won as down payment) as down payment, and the amount set forth in paragraph (1) No. 1 of the calculation table, such as unjust enrichment, to the Incheon Development Corporation until May 14, 2008.

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. Violation of the mandatory law

1) Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) provides that a project operator shall establish and carry out relocation measures as prescribed by the Presidential Decree for those who are deprived of their base of livelihood due to the provision of residential buildings due to the implementation of a public project, or pay resettlement funds as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The relocation measures under the above Act provide land necessary for the implementation of a public project, etc. to those who are deprived of their base of livelihood, or who are constructed housing on the ground and provided their own with the cost of relocation and drainage facilities for the relocation of the said housing. It is reasonable to interpret that the relocation measures under the former Act should be provided to those who are not subject to relocation measures at the cost of the relocation and settlement of the said housing site to the project operator at the same time as the cost of the relocation and settlement of the housing site. This is also required to be provided to the local government as part of the so-called local residential facilities.

2) However, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, instead of creating and supplying a new house site as relocation measures for the plaintiffs who lose their base of living due to the expropriation of the housing or land belonging to the project zone of this case, as well as arranging the plaintiffs to receive special supply of the main apartment to newly construct and sell the apartment complex, and the plaintiffs concluded a sales contract for the apartment complex of this case with the Incheon Development Corporation, which is arranged by the defendant, with the defendant, at the same time as half-day buyers. Thus, the defendant's ordering the plaintiffs to conclude a sales contract on the apartment of this case according to the purchase price of the housing site and the construction cost of the housing site, the sale price and the construction cost of this apartment of this case in excess of the Incheon Development Corporation and the construction cost are in violation of the Act on Public Works, which is the mandatory law in light of the above legal principles.

3) As to this, the defendant first claims that "if a project operator supplies a housing site or house to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Housing Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (including a case of supplying a house by referral of a project operator), the relocation measures shall be deemed to have been established and implemented." Thus, the defendant asserts that there is no ground to bear the cost of basic living facilities by fulfilling all the duties of the project operator, and thus, if it is interpreted differently based on the proviso of Article 40 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20506, Dec. 31, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20506, Dec. 31, 2007; Presidential Decree of the former Public Works Act, the project operator shall bear the cost of installing basic living facilities as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act.

In the event that a housing site, etc. is supplied under the proviso of Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Interest Business Act, the provisions that can substitute the method of implementing the relocation measures against the project implementer cannot be deemed to exempt the project implementer from the obligation of basic living facility cost. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Following, the defendant's relocation and settlement under Article 78 (4) of the current Public Works Act amended on October 17, 2007

In addition, in light of the purport of Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of "the place of settlement" under the above provision only as the project operator created and supplied a housing site, and there is no reasonable ground to distinguish between the cases of supplying a housing site and the cases of supplying a housing site as a countermeasure for relocation. In addition, in light of the purport of Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act, the costs of installing a public facility should be borne by the defendant, who is the project operator, in the event that the housing complex is supplied as a countermeasure for relocation. Therefore, even if the housing is supplied as a measure for relocation by the defendant, who is the project operator, as a measure for relocation, the costs of installing a public facility should be borne by the defendant.

B. The reasonable sale price to be paid by the Plaintiffs

(1) In the case of supplying housing to migrantss, it is reasonable to impose only the cost of construction on the housing site, and the cost of construction on the housing site, as seen earlier, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleading Nos. 5-2, 14, 16, 21 and 22, the plaintiffs' possession price of each apartment site in this case is zero (the site of this case was its own tideland), and the construction cost of each apartment site is KRW 30, 850 (the construction cost of each apartment site in this case is KRW 2,91.4 billion and KRW 90,000,000, KRW 30,000,000,000 per annum and KRW 84,000,000 per annum and KRW 7,000,000,000 per annum and KRW 30,000 per annum, and the construction cost of each apartment site is 30,000,000 won per annum.

(c) The occurrence, amount, etc. of the obligation to return unjust gains;

As seen earlier, the plaintiffs paid the amount indicated in the table of calculation, such as the amount of profit, etc. per attached Form No. 1 to the sales price according to each sales contract of this case. If the business operator of this case arranged the plaintiffs to be specially supplied with each apartment of this case newly constructed by the Incheon Development Corporation as measures for relocation, the defendant should only bear the amount calculated by adding only the amount of construction cost inputs after deducting the price possessed, construction cost development cost, and installation cost of public facilities, etc. according to the above legal principles, and the defendant, who is the project operator, should bear the excess amount. However, the defendant violated the mandatory law as above and caused the plaintiffs to pay the calculation of unjust enrichment, etc. to the plaintiffs more than the legitimate sale price stated in the attached table No. 1 to May 14, 2008. The defendant paid the amount equivalent to the amount stated in the same table of calculation No. 1 to the amount of unjust enrichment by May 14, 2008. The defendant is obligated to return the above amount to each of the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money listed in the separate sheet No. 1 such as unjust enrichment in attached Form No. 4 with respect to each of the above amounts, as requested by the plaintiff. The defendant is obligated to pay 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 14, 2008 to October 31, 2008, which is the date of this decision from May 14, 2008 to the date of this decision, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted for all of the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges