The list of the plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors is as shown in the attached Table.

Plaintiff and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Barun (LLC)

Attorney Park Jong-ho, Park Jin-Jin, Nam-Jin, Nam-gu, the largest excursion ship, Kim Jong-tae, the largest mar, yeast;

Kim Jong-Un

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The area of a road corresponding to the basic living facilities is required for a project implementer to provide the basic living facilities to the person subject to relocation measures, including roads corresponding to arterial facilities as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Housing Act, i.e. roads located outside the relevant housing complex, which connect to roads of the same kind located outside the relevant housing complex, notwithstanding their length or width (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013); and a road installed within a public-service zone by a project implementer and in charge of the entrance of a housing complex, etc. inside the relevant housing complex, etc. and other functions connected to roads located outside the relevant housing complex and its entire residents, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da29509, Jul. 23, 2015).

The lower court determined that the total road area was included in the construction area of basic living facilities, on the ground that the entire road installed by the Defendant in the project district of the Multifunctional Administrative City construction project (hereinafter referred to as the “project in this case”) constituted basic living facilities. Accordingly, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that, among roads installed in the project district in this case, roads installed in urban planning roads or exclusive residential areas with a width of at least eight meters and roads installed in special-purpose areas

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, such determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope

B. Among traffic squaress, the intersecting point of a traffic plaza is part of a road, which is installed for the purpose of smooth communication of vehicles and pedestrians at the intersection of a congested major road (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da85391, Jul. 9, 2015). In cases where a road with an intersecting point square is installed is a basic living facility, the intersecting point should also be deemed as a basic living facility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da19063, Nov. 26, 2015).

As seen earlier, since the entire roads installed in the instant project district constituted basic living facilities, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the area of a traffic plaza installed in the instant project district is included in the area where the basic living facilities are installed. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the basic living facilities. The drainage stations, water purification stations, and water purification stations constitute the basic living facilities essential for the living of the residents in the relevant project district (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da59268, Oct. 17, 2013; 2015Da1291, Feb. 18, 2016).

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the area of the drainage place and the water purification place is included in the installed area of the basic living facilities, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In view of the fact that the underground facilities, such as supply facilities for electricity, gas, and tap water, communications facilities, and sewerage facilities, are jointly installed underground to improve the aesthetic view of a utility tunnel, to preserve the road structure, and to ensure smooth flow of traffic (Article 2 subparag. 9, subparag. 6 (c) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act), and fall under road appurtenances (Article 3 subparag. 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act). A majority of the facilities installed in a utility tunnel falls under the basic living facilities essential for residential life, such as electric lines, communications lines, water pipes, heat transmission pipes, gas pipes, and sewerage pipes, and that the installation of a utility tunnel has the effect of replacing and saving the cost of individually installing the basic living facilities to be expropriated, it is reasonable to deem that the installation costs of the utility tunnel fall under the cost of installing the basic living facilities essential for residential life

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the construction cost of the instant utility tunnel was included in the construction cost of basic living facilities, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine

B. As seen earlier, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant drainage site construction cost was included in the cost of establishing a basic living facility. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the basic living facility.

C. Since bridges, complete three-dimensionalization facilities, underground roads, pedestrian overpassess, underground sidewalkss, high-priced roads, tunnels, bridges, bridges, underground passages, overpasses, and three-dimensionalization facilities are part of roads (see Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 51 of the Road Act). If roads on which such facilities are installed are installed are used as basic living facilities, such roads constituting basic living facilities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da21943, Dec. 10, 2015; 2015Da22083, Feb. 18, 2016). Accordingly, the lower court’s determination that the entire roads installed in the instant project district constituted basic living facilities falls under the scope of basic living facilities, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the basic living facilities, such as bridges, bridges, multi-dimensionalization facilities, pedestrian roads, high-priced roads, and underground tunnels.

(d) Expenses for maintaining and managing facilities;

The lower court determined that the amount equivalent to the ratio of the total area of the instant project district to the total area of the project district constituted the cost of installing basic living facilities.

However, the cost of maintaining and managing facilities is not required for the installation of various facilities, but for the time when the competent management authority receives the right to manage the facilities from the time when the management authority received the right to manage the facilities temporarily, and the cost of installing the facilities falls under a kind of "reserve fund that includes a certain percentage of the cost of installing the facilities in advance at the development cost," and thus, it cannot be deemed that it is a cost related to the installation of basic living facilities (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da235714, Nov. 26, 2015).

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the cost of installing basic living facilities, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jong-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.