채무부존재확인
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
1. The lower court: (a) acknowledged that among the total project area of the instant case, the road 252,524 square meters was reverted to the Defendant free of charge; (b) the total site cost included only the expenses for the portion of the State-owned and public land, and did not calculate the site cost; and (c) in calculating the site cost for the basic living facilities among the expenses for the installation of the basic living facilities that are included in the purchase price for the Plaintiffs, the said free reversion area should be excluded; and (d) calculated the site cost for the basic living facilities by means of raising the ratio of the area for the road installation, excluding the said free reversion portion, from the total site area,
2. However, we cannot accept the fact-finding and decision of the court below for the following reasons.
Since the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs is equivalent to the cost of the basic living facilities included in the sale price, the site cost of the basic living facilities, one of the constituent elements, shall be calculated by multiplying the total area of the land included in the total site cost, which is the basis for calculating the sale price, by the said total site cost in proportion to the area occupied by the basic living facilities.
However, according to the records, although the existing road 252,524 square meters has been gratuitously reverted to the defendant as the state-owned and public land, the defendant can be aware of the fact that the land which is gratuitously reverted is evaluated as 244,887,024,326 won and included in the site cost. Thus, the area of the gratuitously reverted portion should be included in the calculation of the site cost
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of land costs for basic living facilities, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of judgment.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded.