Attached 1. It is as shown in the list of plaintiffs (Attorney Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 24, 2015

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Gahap12992 Decided December 31, 2009

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na20688 Decided October 12, 2012

Supreme Court Decision 2012Da107723 Decided February 13, 2014

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A. Plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42-1, 42-2, 42-3, 43, 46, 48, 58, 59, and 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42-1, 42-3, 43, 46, 48, 59, and 29, respectively, shall be dismissed.

B. The plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors except the plaintiffs 23 and the succeeding intervenors 29, who are the plaintiffs in the above paragraph (a) and the succeeding intervenors in the lawsuit of the non-party 1, and the plaintiff 29, and the plaintiff 29, who are the plaintiffs in the above paragraph (a) and the succeeding intervenors in the lawsuit of the non-party 1, the plaintiff 23 and the non-party 2, are all dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs 23, and the intervenors succeeding to the lawsuit of the non-party 1.

1. Purport of claim and that of application for succession participation

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs, non-party 1's 23 and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenors (hereinafter the plaintiffs, non-party 1's 23 and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenors together with the plaintiff's succeeding intervenors) the amount of claim stated in attached Table 2. 6. "The amount claimed on June 3, 2015" and each of the above amounts shall be paid 5% per annum from May 1, 2009 to the date the judgment of the party is rendered, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff et al. reduced the claim as above in the trial after the remand).

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, 2, 12-1 through 4, Gap evidence 14-1, 18, Gap evidence 31-1 through 4, 6, 9 through 14, 29 through 37, 39 through 67, 64-1 through 70, 33-1 through 4, 34-1 through 4, 34-1 through 4, 5-1, 5-1 to 6-4, 5-1 to 5-1, 5-2, 5-1 to 6-4, 5-1 to 3-4, 5-1 to 6-4, 5-1 to 5-4, 5-1 to 6-1, 35-1 to 4, 37-1 to 37-4, 5-1 to 4-4, 5-1 to 5-4, 5-1 to 5-1

(a) Outline of the housing site development project;

1) A approximately 9,307,148 square meters of the land located in the area located in Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-si was designated and publicly announced as a prearranged area for housing site development on December 26, 2001. The Korea National Housing Corporation, Korea Land Corporation, Sungnam-si, and Gyeonggi-do became a joint project executor of the housing site development project of Sungnam-dong, where the said planned area for housing site development (hereinafter “instant project”) is a project district (hereinafter “instant project”).

2) After approval of the housing site development plan on December 30, 2003, approval of the housing site development plan on December 30, 2004, and approval of the housing site development plan on December 30, 2004, on May 18, 2005, approval of housing site supply was made on May 23, 2005 on the basis of the area of the project site and estimated development cost finalized through the approval of the housing site development plan and the implementation plan on May 23, 2005. Since several times, the housing site development plan was modified, but the frame was maintained as a substitute.

3) Meanwhile, the Korea Land Corporation merged with the Korea Land Corporation on October 1, 2009, and became the Defendant, and the Defendant taken over the instant lawsuit at the trial prior to remand (hereinafter “the Korea Land Corporation or the Korea Land Corporation”) (hereinafter “the Defendant”).

B. The process of supplying the Defendant’s relocation housing site

1) The following [Attachment 2] The plaintiffs and the original residents (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "original residents of this case") reside in the project district of this case. The defendant is incorporated into the project district of this case and decided to specially sell the land for detached houses to be developed within the project district of this case as part of the relocation measures against the original residents of this case who lost their base of livelihood due to expropriation of their houses, land, etc. as part of the relocation measures against them, and completed the announcement of the supply of detached houses around October 22, 2007 and the announcement of the supply of detached houses around April 2, 2008.

2) The Defendant supplied one parcel of 230 square meters to the original person subject to relocation measures at a level below 80% of the development cost (based on the amount calculated by deducting the installation cost of basic living facilities from the development cost), and publicly notified that the portion exceeding the above area inevitably exceeds the above area due to the circumstances under which the ownership is to be partitioned should be supplied as appraisal price. On November 2006, the supply price of the housing site of migrants is reduced up to 265 square meters, and the portion in excess is approved by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as to the housing site supply plan that includes the contents that the housing site is supplied as appraisal price

3) The Defendant set the sale price of the housing site to be specially supplied to the person subject to the relocation measures and the sale price of the housing site to be supplied to ordinary consumers differently as follows:

A) On the basis of Article 13-2(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008) and Article 18(1) [Attachment 3] of the former Guidelines for Processing of Housing Site Development (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 376, Aug. 21, 2009), general consumers supplied housing construction sites in Seoul Metropolitan area as appraisal prices.

B) Pursuant to Article 17 of the established rules on the establishment and implementation of relocation measures (hereinafter “established rules on relocation measures”), a person subject to relocation measures determined the unit price of supply per 1 square meter after calculating the supply price of the instant housing site subject to relocation measures (the method of calculating the unit price of supply per 1 square meter,691,804, which is stipulated in the established rules on relocation measures). However, in accordance with Article 17(3) of the established rules on relocation measures, the appraisal price was calculated based on the excess of the unit price of supply in the relevant sales contract, based on the difference rate (referring to the difference in appraisal price according to the location, form, and surrounding tax, etc. of individual parcels) by parcel in accordance with Article 17(3) of the established rules on relocation measures that ensure that the supply price of the housing site subject to relocation measures exceeds 265 square meters. In other words, the appraisal price was calculated based on the unit price of supply per 1,691,804 square meter in the relevant sales contract.

[Attachment 1]

A person shall be appointed.

(c) Conclusion of sales contracts and payment of sales price; and

1) The Defendant entered into each sales contract (hereinafter “each sales contract of this case”) with the original residents of this case with the same contents as the entries in [Attachment 2] (However, after the conclusion of the sales contract, the sales area and the sales price was settled after the conclusion of the sales contract. Each entry in [Attachment 2] was the final settlement area and the sales price). The original residents of this case transferred their status under each sales contract of this case to the pertinent third party (hereinafter “the seller of this case”) with the Defendant’s consent as stated in the “contract succession” column in the same table.

2) When succeeding to the rights and obligations under each of the instant sales contracts from each of the instant buyers, they transferred to each of the instant Plaintiffs a claim for return of unjust enrichment arising from deducting the cost of basic living facilities from the sale price, and notified the Defendant of a transfer with a fixed date.

3) The Plaintiffs, etc. paid each amount indicated in the column of “(3) sale price after settlement” in attached Form 2 in attached Table 2 to the Defendant not later than the date indicated in attached Table 2 of the instant sales contract. The Plaintiffs, etc. paid the sales price after adding the agreed parties, overdue interest or advance payment discount, and deducting the sales price. The Plaintiffs, etc. paid overdue interest or advance payment discount paid or discounted by the Plaintiffs, etc. are as indicated in the column of “public interest or advance payment discount.”

[Attachment 2] Sale Contract

본문내 포함된 표 순번 수분양자(원주민) 공급면적(㎡) 예정지번 정산후 분양대금(원) 계약승계 부당이득반환채권의 양수 1 원고 1 298.1 94-6 564,713,000 2 원고 2 264.3 115-2 469,663,110 3 원고 3 255.1 106-6 422,825,750 4 소외 9 264.7 99-4 421,442,360 원고 4(갑 제32호증의 1) 5 원고 5 264.9 122-2 421,760,790 6 원고 6 264.2 100-4 474,114,380 7 원고 7 292.7 104-1 560,130,100 소외 10, 소외 11 갑 74호증의 1 내지 5 8 원고 8 255.1 106-3 398,426,190 9 원고 9 257.4 111-3 488,990,170 소외 12(갑 제33호증의 4) 갑 제33호증의 1 내지 3 10 원고 10 292.9 104-3 556,026,700 소외 13(갑 제34호증의 4) 갑 제34호증의 1 내지 3 11 원고 11 260.4 111-6 48,561,200 12 원고 12 297.2 103-3 536,555,800 13 소외 38 287.0 113-6 590,450,000 원고 13(갑 제32호증의 3) 14 원고 14 265.0 122-3 421,760,790 15 원고 15 294.2 103-7 598,687,000 소외 14 갑 제75호증의 1, 2 16 원고 16 264.3 119-9 433,441,990 소외 15(갑 제35호증의 4) 갑 제35호증의 1 내지 3 17 소외 16 261.2 109-9 486,212,300 원고 17(갑 제32호증의 4) 18 소외 17 258.3 105-2 486,174,670 원고 18(갑 제32호증의 5) 19 원고 19 264.3 117-3 404,379,000 20 원고 20 264.2 120-4 416,435,250 소외 18(갑 제36호증의 4) 갑 제36호증의 1 내지 3 21 원고 21 286.5 112-6 548,410,000 22 원고 22 262.7 92-2 426,213,270 23 망 원고 소외 1의 소송수계인 원고 23 279.9 102-6 544,531,300 원고 23, 소외 19(갑 제37호증의 6) 갑 제37호증의 1 내지 5 24 원고 24 354.4 115-5 748,025,200 소외 20 갑 제76호증의 1, 2 25 원고 25 313.9 122-4 547,932,300 26 원고 26 262.8 92-7 439,775,320 소외 21 갑 제39호증의 1 내지 3 27 원고 27 264.8 123-4 422,021,260 28 소외 22 263.8 122-6 412,017,630 원고 28(갑 제32호증의 6) 29 원고 소외 2(탈퇴) 264.5 107-4 456,112,220 원고 소외 2의 승계참가인 원고 29(갑 제47호증) 30 원고 30 281.0 101-4 518,430,000 소외 23(갑 제40호증의 4) 갑 제40호증의 1 내지 3 31 원고 31 292.7 104-4 585,723,600 소외 24(갑 제41호증의 4) 갑 제41호증의 1 내지 3 32 원고 32 263.9 108-5 445,820,420 소외 25(갑 제42호증의 4) 갑 제42호증의 1 내지 3 33 원고 33 264.5 115-3 470,018,510 소외 26(갑 제43호증의 4) 갑 제43호증의 1 내지 3 34 원고 34 262.8 95-2 426,785,210 35 원고 35 277.9 113-10 554,131,500 소외 27 갑 제77호증의 1, 2 36 소외 28 258.3 105-1 486,174,670 원고 36(갑 제32호증의 7) 37 원고 37 259.7 118-3 418,027,110 소외 29(갑 제44호증의 4) 갑 제44호증의 1 내지 3 38 원고 38 265.0 122-1 452,320,000 소외 30(갑 제45호증의 5) 갑 제45호증의 1 내지 4 39 원고 39 261.8 92-3 388,862,940 40 원고 40 255.0 106-2 394,210,000 소외 31, 소외 32 갑 제46호증의 1 내지 6 41 원고 41 263.8 121-1 491,897,070 42 원고 42-1 291.0 113-5 551,540,000 원고 42-2 원고 42-3 43 원고 43 257.4 111-5 479,961,210 44 원고 44 258.8 108-3 424,833,240 45 소외 33 295.9 94-3 485,879,700 원고 45(갑 제32호증의 8) 46 소외 34 280.8 101-5 522,124,000 원고 46(갑 제32호증의 9) 47 원고 47-1 261.0 109-2 432,600,000 원고 겸 원고 소외 3, 원고 소외 4, 원고 소외 5의 승계참가인 원고 47-1 원고 소외 3(탈퇴) 원고 소외 3, 원고 소외 4, 원고 소외 5의 승계참가인 원고 47-2(갑 제106호증의 1 내지 4) 원고 소외 4(탈퇴) 원고 소외 5(탈퇴) 48 원고 48 286.5 112-5 554,893,500 49 원고 49 272.6 91-2 459,168,400 50 원고 50 261.1 109-4 420,280,970 51 원고 51 264.5 107-2 438,398,740 52 원고 52 271.1 121-6 421,167,700 소외 35, 소외 36 갑 제78호증의 1 내지 3 53 원고 53 264.9 93-5 405,297,000 54 원고 소외 6(탈퇴) 268.0 116-3 427,114,850 원고 겸 원고 소외 6, 원고 소외 7의 승계참가인 원고 54(갑 제48호증의 1 내지 7) 원고 소외 7(탈퇴) 원고 54 55 소외 37 263.8 93-3 391,832,940 원고 55(갑 제32호증의 10) 56 원고 소외 8(탈퇴) 355.6 99-6 661,968,800 원고 소외 8의 승계참가인 원고 56(갑 제85호증) 57 원고 57 264.0 121-2 424,530,000 58 원고 58 264.5 115-4 470,018,510 59 원고 59 267.7 123-1 520,663,900

2. Determination on this safety defense

The Defendant’s defense that the amount reduced due to the reduction of the claim amount from the trial court to March 31, 2015 after the remand of part of the Plaintiffs, etc., and the extension of the claim amount again on June 3, 2015 is unlawful contrary to the principle of prohibition of re-instigation of lawsuit.

Then, the plaintiffs et al. filed a suit against the defendant on March 31, 2015 against the defendant on the claim amount No. 2, attached Table 2, "The claim amount No. 31, 2015," and the amount No. 2 from May 1, 2009 to the date of the original decision, 5% per annum, and the claim amount No. 20% per annum from June 3, 2015 to the date of complete payment, and again filed a suit against the plaintiff No. 3, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and the claim amount No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and the claim amount No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and the claim amount No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and the claim amount No. 9, No. 2, and No. 3, No. 1, 2015, Plaintiff No. 3, Plaintiff No. 1, 2, and No. 2, Plaintiff No. 16, and No. 1, Plaintiff No. 3, Plaintiff No. 16, Plaintiff 1, and 4, Plaintiff 1. 7.

3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant concluded each contract for the sale of this case with relocation measures under the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007, hereinafter “former Land Compensation Act”) to create and supply migrants sites within the project district of this case to the original residents, and calculated each contract for the sale of this case, including the calculation of the sale price to be applied to the person subject to relocation measures pursuant to Article 78(4) of the former Land Compensation Act after deducting the cost of installation of basic living facilities from the calculation of the sale price to be applied to the person subject to relocation measures. Therefore, since the part of the sale price equivalent to the cost of installation of basic living facilities among each contract for the sale of this case is invalid because it is in violation of the mandatory law, the Defendant must return

(b) Relevant legal principles;

If a person subject to relocation measures was to pay the project operator, etc. the cost of installing the basic living facilities as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Land Compensation Act by including the cost of installing the basic living facilities in the sale price under a special supply contract for housing site or housing entered into between a person subject to relocation measures and a project operator or a supplier under his/her arrangement, the portion of the special supply contract, which included the cost of installing the basic living facilities in the sale price, is null and void because it violates Article 78(4) of the former Land Compensation Act, which is a mandatory law, in the case where a project operator directly supplies housing site or a house. If another supplier supplies housing site or a house through his/her arrangement, the project operator is exempted from the disbursement of the amount equivalent to the cost of installing the basic living facilities to be borne by the project operator without any legal cause. Accordingly, the project operator is obligated to return the amount to the person subject to relocation measures as unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63096, Jun. 23, 2011).

C. Calculation method of unjust enrichment

As seen earlier, the Defendant determined the unit price of the instant re-sale site as “development cost” and obtained approval for the supply of the housing site. Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the sales price of the instant re-sale site as the basis for the cost of creating the housing site (i.e., total project cost - the cost of relocation measures) and calculated by deducting the installation cost of basic living facilities from that amount. As such, the scope of unjust enrichment should be determined by adding the installation cost of basic living facilities that the Defendant did not deducts the Defendant based on the cost of creating the housing site: Provided, That in principle, the Defendant stated that the re-sale site should be supplied based on 165 square meters or 265 square meters per parcel pursuant to the Rules on the Measures for Relocation Measures, and stated the fact that only one housing site is supplied as relocation measures within the limit of 265 square meters prior to entering into the instant sales contract, and actually, calculated the discounted price by up to 265 square meters per parcel of land, and calculated the sale price as the appraisal price for the portion exceeding 265 square meters per parcel of land as well as the Plaintiffs agreed to be limited to the sale contract.

Therefore, in a case where a project implementer and a person subject to relocation measures include basic living facilities installation costs in the supply price of a housing site calculated on the basis of the cost of creating the housing site, such excess amount should be deemed as unjust enrichment. In such a case, the installation costs of basic living facilities are not calculated on the basis of the supply price of the housing site equivalent to appraisal prices (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da59268, 59275, 59282, Oct. 17, 2013, etc.). However, since the Defendant’s provision of the housing site to the plaintiffs who are eligible for relocation measures of this case exceeds 265 square meters which is the limit of the supply price of the housing site of this case to the general public, it is reasonable to include the installation costs of basic living facilities on the basis of the price of the housing site in advance at the 20th price calculated on the basis of the price of the housing site in advance, as well as the price of the housing site in advance at the 20th price of the housing site in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 20020Da3737, Feb. 2, 20137, etc.).

Ultimately, a reasonable sale price under each sales contract of this case shall be calculated by multiplying the sales price per 265 square meter by the supply area of not more than 265 square meters, which reflects the difference in the cost of basic facilities in the housing site development cost, by the amount calculated by deducting the installation cost of basic facilities from the cost of housing site development cost. ② As to the part exceeding 265 square meters in the sale area, it shall be calculated by multiplying the appraisal price per 1 square meter, including the cost of installing basic living facilities, by the supply area of not more than 265 square meters, as in the general buyer, and the Plaintiffs’ delay damages or advance payment payment shall be calculated by multiplying the appraisal price per 265 square meter, which includes the cost of installing basic facilities, by the proportion of the principal overpaid or erroneously paid (Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that a legitimate sale price should be calculated by multiplying the amount calculated by subtracting the installation cost of basic facilities

D. Whether the obligation to return unjust enrichment occurred

1) The housing site preparation cost

A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 14-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 57, Eul evidence Nos. 69, Eul evidence No. 169, and Eul evidence Nos. 16-1 through 5, the total project cost of the project in this case as of May 17, 2005, for which the cost of the creation of the housing site was determined, is calculated as shown below [Attachment 3]. The total project cost of the project in this case is determined as of May 17, 2005. The sum of the project area of the project in this case is 9,307,148 square meters, which is 3,545,124 square meters. Meanwhile, the cost of relocation measures is equivalent to the difference arising from the supply of the residential site to the general supply site at a lower price than the general supply site. Thus, it is not necessary to exclude it from calculating the cost of the creation of the housing site (see Supreme Court Decision 2013060,70809,70908 won.7.2000.

[Attachment 3] Calculation Table of Housing Site Development Costs

3,149,00,00,090,00 3,432,513,000,000 Direct Costs for direct project cost for the portion of the table contained in the main sentence, 127,023,203,203,00,00 direct cost for the 1.93% relocation expenses, 109,206,1200,00 indirect cost for the sales and management expenses for the 364,94,374,000,000 indirect cost for the 364,944,374,000,000, and 5.44% of the direct cost for the 5.44% of the total amount of capital cost for the 5.69% of the cumulative aggregate of the total amount of 5.69% other expenses for the 16,100,487,000,000, and the creation cost for the 1244% of the direct labor cost for the housing site;

B) As to this, the Plaintiffs, etc. asserted that urban support facilities sites constitute commercial business sites and should be supplied at a price based on the appraised price. As such, the Defendant’s actual provision of urban support facilities sites 198,714 square meters, treated as a reduction area, was made at a price depending on the appraised price, insofar as they were supplied at a price based on the appraisal price, the land for urban support facilities that was treated as a reduction area of 198,714 square meters,

In full view of the purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in evidence No. 96-3, evidence No. 96-4, evidence No. 16-4, evidence No. 44, evidence No. 45-1, and evidence No. 45-3, Gyeonggi-do agreed on September 8, 2003 to be supplied with urban support facilities within the project district of this case as venture business and business complex and to establish a development plan and select occupants. On April 29, 2005, upon requesting the Defendant to supply urban support facilities on its own, it requested the Defendant to supply only the remainder of the area excluding the area equivalent to 31.2% of the total area as urban support facilities, such as roads, green areas, parks, squares, etc., which are installed within the project district of this case, and accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the remaining part of the urban support facilities, which were disposed of without compensation, is unlawful.

C) In addition, the plaintiffs et al. asserted that the following expenses included in the total project cost by the defendant, i.e., reserve funds and site costs and creation costs corresponding to urban support facilities cannot be borne by the plaintiffs et al., who are subject to relocation measures, should be excluded from the calculation of the total project cost. Thus, we examine each item.

(1) Reserve funds

The plaintiffs, etc. asserted that the reserve fund is a preliminary expense in preparation for the actual cost exceeds the estimated development cost. There is no evidence that the actual development cost of the project in this case exceeds the estimated development cost, and since other housing site development projects executed by the defendant do not include reserve funds in items of project expenses, they should not include reserve funds in the total project cost of the project in this case.

According to each statement of evidence No. 14-1 to No. 3, evidence No. 14-2, evidence No. 18-2, it can be acknowledged that reserve funds are included in total project cost cost and creation cost. However, reserve funds are expenses incurred in order to cover unforeseeable shortage of expenditure while carrying out the instant project, and there is no ground to exclude reserve funds from total project cost. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs, etc. is without merit.

(2) Land costs and creation costs corresponding to urban support facilities site

The plaintiffs, etc. asserts that the project undertaker of urban support facilities is Gyeonggi-do, which is separate from the housing complex, and the urban support facilities are calculated separately from the land cost and the development cost, so long as the project cost cannot be borne by the plaintiffs, etc., the total project cost should be excluded.

The facts that Gyeonggi-do was supplied with urban support facilities by the defendant are as mentioned above. According to the 10 and 11 of Gap's evidence 12, Gyeonggi-do can recognize the fact that it is promoting the project in the urban support facilities site, such as developing urban support facilities site within the project district of this case as a sale-based project site and publicly announcing the supply thereof. However, after the creation of urban support facilities site, it is difficult to view that Gyeonggi-do established a development plan after the creation of urban support facilities site and recruiting occupants to exclude the site cost and the construction cost related to urban support facilities from the total project cost. Rather, it is difficult to find any grounds to recognize the above plaintiffs' assertion. Rather, it is recognized that the above construction cost of urban support facilities should not be separated from the development cost of the housing site of this case, and it is recognized that the housing site is not a separate project district of this case, but a separate project district of this case, and that the defendant is not a legitimate person subject to the development of the housing site of this case, as well as the construction cost of the housing site of this case.

(c) Costs of construction, etc. of underground lanes, tunnels, bridges, bridges, etc.

The plaintiffs, etc. asserted that the construction cost of underground lanes 426,10,000,00, the tunnel development cost of KRW 41,200,000,000, the tunnel development cost of KRW 138,951,00,00,000, and the bridge (road, etc.) development cost of KRW 65,375,00,00,000, among the construction cost, are included in total construction cost of KRW 764,139,00,00,00, and the above amount should be deducted from total project cost.

According to the evidence No. 18-2 of Eul, among the total project cost, the development cost of underground roads includes 426,110,000,000,200,000, 41,200,000, 138,951,000,000, 138,000, and 65,375,000,000,000, which includes the construction cost of bridge (river, etc.) and the construction cost of bridge (river, etc.) with the construction cost of housing site. However, in light of the fact that the construction cost of underground roads, tunnel construction cost, bridge construction cost, bridge construction cost, and bridge construction cost, etc., the construction cost of a bridge, etc. is included in the construction cost of a bridge, etc., the construction cost of a bridge, etc., which seems to be included in the construction cost of a bridge, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the construction cost of a bridge, etc. is included in the construction cost of an underground road.

(ii) Costs of installing basic living facilities;

A) Site costs;

In full view of the written evidence No. 68, Gap evidence No. 69, Eul evidence No. 16-1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 16-19, and Eul evidence No. 19, the total area on which the basic living facilities of the instant project district are installed is 1,706,629 square meters in total as shown below [Attachment No. 4].

[Attachment 4] Installation area of basic living facilities

The sum of 1,423,138 (Weju 2) 27,291 27,291 3 water supply sites, 429,687, the sum of 35,998 7 sewage treatment stations, the sum of 1,706,629,629, the sum of 2,400 sewage treatment stations, the sum of 35,998 7 sewage treatment stations, the sum of 1,70,629, and the sum of 2,400 sewage pumping stations, the sum of which is recognized as 1,706,629

Note 2) 1,423,138

The following shall be examined with respect to the part on which the parties dispute over the establishment area of the basic living facilities.

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(a)gas supply facilities, substations and integrated energy supply facilities;

The plaintiffs, etc. asserts that the area of gas supply facilities installed should include 10,439 square meters in the area of basic facilities for living, 6,189 square meters in the area of facilities installed for substations, and 42,527 square meters in the area of facilities installed for integrated energy supply.

In light of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 12-15, 18, 168, 173-1, 2, and 29, where a project proprietor supplied gas, heating, or electricity to a person who supplies gas or electricity in the pertinent project district at least a cost for the development of a housing site, the land cost cannot be deemed to have been transferred to the sale price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da37374, Jan. 16, 2014); thus, the land cost cannot be deemed to have been included in the cost for the installation of a basic living facility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da37374, Jan. 16, 2014); and the purport of the arguments in the above statement No. 15, 18, 173-1, 2, and 29, the defendant can recognize the fact that the Korea Gas Corporation supplying gas in the instant project district, the Korea Electric Power Corporation, and the Korea District Heating Corporation.

(b) Roads:

The plaintiffs, etc. claim that roads included in roads installed in housing complex and urban support facilities sites should be included in roads with 116,024 square meters and 116,024 square meters of residential facilities installed in the instant project district.

The term "basic living facilities according to the relevant local conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities, etc." means roads and water supply and drainage facilities, electric facilities, communications facilities, gas facilities, or district heating facilities, etc. which are to be installed by a project proprietor who implements a housing construction project or a housing site development project under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 23 of the Housing Act, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63089, 63096, Jun. 23, 2011, etc.). Since roads falling under arterial facilities include all roads linking roads located outside the relevant housing complex with the same kind of road located outside the relevant housing complex (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013). Since the concept of "A" 12-10, 11, and No. 84-1, it does not correspond to the urban residential facilities located outside the relevant housing complex as a research site for the purpose of Gyeonggi-do.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(a) Roads:

① In the trial before remanding, the Defendant stipulated the scope of a road as an arterial facility under the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act. Since a road with a length of less than 200 meters is recognized as an arterial facility only from the main entrance of a housing complex, the part of a road with a length of less than 200 meters must be excluded from arterial facilities. Since Article 2 of the Housing Act provides that a housing complex may be divided only into a road with a width of not less than 8 meters, a road with a width of less than 8 meters is merely a road within a housing complex and is not an arterial facility

② In addition, the Defendant asserts that the area of the road, which is a basic living facility, is 613,038.9 square meters since the roads installed within the exclusive residential area and the general residential area among the roads located within the instant project district, falls under the roads which are a basic living facility. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the area of the road, which is a basic living facility, is 613,038.9 square meters, and, in addition, 23 lines (luminous 3-1), 57 lines (luminous 3-2, 1-1, 2-3 as luminous 3-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1 as luminous 3-1, 2-1, 3-1, 2-1, all of which are main residential facilities, should be excluded from the road area which is a basic living facility.

Articles 2 subparag. 8, 21(1)2, and 23(1) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405, Feb. 3, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “former Housing Act”); Articles 25 and 57 of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008); Article 9(2)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 107, Mar. 19, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “former Housing Act”); Article 25 and 57 of the former Housing Act; Article 9(2)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 107; hereinafter referred to as the “former Housing Act”); Article 207Da63089, Jun. 23, 2011>

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the part of a road with a length of less than 200 meters and a road with a width of less than 8 meters is merely a road within a housing complex, and it is not an arterial facility.

Then, the defendant's argument that the national expressway, a metropolitan transport facility, does not constitute a basic road even if the national expressway is installed to pass through the project district. According to the evidence No. 68 and the evidence No. 18-1 of the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 68 and No. 18, the national expressway, a metropolitan transport facility, includes the area of 1,475,882 square meters (excluding a river bridge area of 32,114 square meters (excluding a river bridge area of 1,507,96 square meters in a total road area of 1,507,96 square meters) of the road area within the project district of this case, the area of 19,90 square meters in a light (n.b. 2-1), 33,735 square meters in a river bridge area of 33,768 square meters in a total area of 33,768 square meters (33m x 28m) of the river area in the project district of this case shall be excluded.

However, comprehensively taking account of the entire arguments and arguments in Eul evidence 18-1 and No. 84-1, the roads in the project district of this case function as main roads connected to the roads outside the project district of this case as the water network. Since the roads in the project district of this case function as the main roads connected to the roads outside the project district of this case, 23 lines of State-funded local highways located in the project district of this case, 57 lines of this case, high-speed roads between subdivisions, high-speed roads between city roads, and roads with roads outside the project district of this case, which the defendants asserted that they are not basic living facilities, are being provided for the passage of the residents while connecting the housing complex located outside the project district of this case and other roads outside the project district of this case, the concept of the roads as main roads, auxiliary roads, aggregate roads, and national roads should be determined as the functional basis for the installation standards of urban planning facilities in accordance with the legal principles as well as the concept and purpose of the urban planning facilities installed in the housing complex of this case, it should be determined within the residential area of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified within the above scope of recognition.

(b) Traffic squares;

The Defendant asserts that a traffic plaza differs from a road and its nature, and thus does not constitute a basic living facility. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 12-15 and evidence Nos. 68, the Defendant’s argument, among the squares located within the instant project district, the traffic plaza No. 11,942 square meters (excluding a river bridge area of 91 square meters in a 12,033 square), 22 transportation squares (excluding a river bridge area of 309,497 square not exceeding 2,57 square in a river bridge area of 2,577 square), 3 transportation squares and 15,349 square, which include 334,211 square meters in a total of 334,211 square meters in a 2nd, the transport plaza, which is a 2nd square, it can be acknowledged that it constitutes a basic living facility for the transportation of a traffic plaza, which is a 202 square square, within a part of a living facility.

(C) A voltage, drained and drained.

The defendant asserts that the facilities related to wide-area waterworks are excluded from arterial facilities because they are not arterial facilities or used for the purpose of moving the site for the temporary voltage existing before towing, and that all the pressure and drainage facilities in the project district of this case should be installed by the waterworks business operator. However, the main facilities are not limited to the facilities that directly connect the key facilities within the housing complex with the key facilities outside the housing complex, but include all the facilities that directly perform the functions of directly connecting the key facilities outside the housing complex. As such, the main pressure is not limited to the facilities that directly perform the functions of connecting the key facilities outside the housing complex, and it is necessary to perform the connecting functions between the key facilities as part of the waterworks facilities by transmitting the water supply facilities to the lower place of the water supply water using the pumps. In addition, it is necessary to secure the new pressure site in order to relocate the previous site for the provisional pressure site, it is necessary to include it in the area for the installation of the basic facilities. ② Since the water supply facility is part of the water supply facilities that has not been specified in time, it is not reasonable to temporarily adjust the purification facilities.

(d) Water supply site:

In light of the fact that ① the water supply site in the project site of this case is not for the residents living in the Seoul metropolitan area, but for the purpose of water supply throughout the Seoul metropolitan area, the water supply site does not fall under the basic living facilities, or ② the water supply facility management officer claims that the water supply site does not fall under the basic living facilities because it is actually included in the road area because the water supply site is laid underground according to the road surface, so it is not appropriate to recognize that the above water supply site is merely the relocation site of the existing wide-area waterworks. In addition, in light of the fact that there is no site for the water supply and sewerage pipelines in the housing site constructed by the project of this case other than the above water supply site, it is difficult to view that the above wide-area water supply site of this case was installed or transferred to supply water supply to the housing site constructed by the project of this case, and it is difficult to view that the above water supply site of this case is separate from the whole water supply site area of the road of this case, and it is not reasonable to recognize that the above area of the water supply site of the entire water supply site is not included in the ground area of the above.

(e) Claim for exclusion from the area of gratuitous attribution

The defendant asserts that since the existing public facilities in the project district of this case are reverted to the defendant who is the project implementer under the relevant statutes, at least the part corresponding to the area of the existing public facilities in the basic living facilities area should be excluded from calculating the basic living facilities cost.

According to Article 25(1) of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 10764, May 30, 201); Article 25(1) of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 10764, May 30, 201); the State-owned and public land of 1,378,61.68 square meters, including the total project area of 214,512.4 square meters, is reverted to the Defendant without compensation; KRW 3,149,00,000,000 for the instant project site; KRW 2,673,468,000,000 for land compensation; KRW 1460,000; and KRW 4660,000; and KRW 297,000,000 for residential facilities; KRW 30,000,000 for residential facilities; KRW 267,000,00 for residential facilities; and KRW 29736364,7,297,00.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the cost of the site for the basic living facilities shall be 577,424,456,406 won calculated by multiplying the total cost of the entire site by the ratio of the area where the basic living facilities are installed among the entire area (i.e., KRW 3,149,00,00,090 x 1,706,629 square meters/9,307,148 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply). However, in calculating the cost of the basic living facilities, the cost of the site for the basic living facilities shall be excluded from the free reversion area related to the area where the basic living facilities are installed in the public facilities included in the calculation of the cost of the basic living facilities. Therefore, in order to calculate the cost of the site equivalent to the area where the basic living facilities are installed excluding the gratuitous reversion portion x 1,378,61.68 square meters x 1,706,629 square meters / 6,036,37 square meters.

(3) Sub-determination

Ultimately, the cost of the site for basic living facilities is KRW 465,03,59 (=total cost of KRW 3,149,000,090,000) x [1,316,893 square meters in the area where basic living facilities, excluding the free reverted area (=1,706,629 square meters - 389,736 square meters) x total business area of KRW 8,917,412 square meters (=9,307,148 square meters - 389,736 square meters) excluding the free reverted area].

B) Costs of creation

The construction cost and charges, etc. paid for the installation of basic living facilities are included in the cost of establishing basic living facilities. In full view of each of the statements in the evidence No. 14-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 14 and the evidence No. 18-2 of the evidence No. 18-2 of the present project, the total amount of the cost of creating basic living facilities of the present project shall be calculated as KRW 1,022,069,157,645, which is the sum of all the cost of creating basic living facilities recognized as shown in the table No. 5 below.

[Attachment 5] The calculation table of cost of creating basic living facilities

(1) Items 10,80,80,8040,607,800,607,601 for residential facilities of 160,706,70,706,80,600,7061 for residential facilities of 160,706,80,600,700,600,7061 for residential facilities of 160,706,706,600,706,605,000 for residential facilities of 167,60,60,706,70,000 for residential facilities of 206,70,60,706,60,706,60,000 for residential facilities of 30,60,706,606,606,70,000,000 for residential facilities of 5,00,005,636,605,606,06,

Note 5) 63,058,925,204

Note 6) 15,526,558,407

Note 7) 63,493,97,944

Note 8) 3,612,373,573

Note 9) 3,404,952,183

Note 10) 5,501,026,738

Note 11) 1,246,716,026

Note 12) 1,378,740,668

Note 13) 7,853,632,506

Note 14) 13,132,234,396

On the other hand, this paper examines the dispute between the parties regarding the cost of creating the basic living facilities.

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(a)the construction cost of the structure, the excavation cost of cultural properties, and the cost of wild trees planting;

The plaintiffs, etc. asserted to the effect that each of the above costs constitutes the basic cost of living facilities, since the construction cost of structures, excavation cost of cultural properties, wild tree planting expenses, etc. are to be paid in the course of building roads which are basic living facilities.

In light of the above, it is difficult to see that the expenses incurred in the construction of main facilities or basic living facilities connecting key facilities such as roads, etc. as prescribed by the former Housing Act in light of the nature of the excavation expenses for cultural properties, wild trees, etc., and it is difficult to see that the expenses incurred in the construction are directly or indirectly related to the installation of basic living facilities such as waterworks and roads, and there is no evidence to see that the expenses incurred in the construction of structures are directly or indirectly related to the installation of basic living facilities such as waterworks and roads. Rather, according to the statement in the evidence No. 18-2 of the evidence No. 18, the construction expenses incurred in the construction of structures are appropriated separately from the installation expenses of special structures such as underground lanes corresponding to the basic living facilities, tunnels, etc., out of

(b) Costs for creating urban support facilities sites;

The plaintiffs et al. asserted that since a road of 116,024 square meters included in an urban support facility site constitutes a basic living facility, 28,550,869,973 won equivalent to the size of the road among 48,89,000,000 won should be included in the cost of installing basic living facilities, the road of 116,024 square meters included in an urban support facility site cannot be deemed as a basic living facility. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs et al. is without merit.

(c) Charges for metropolitan transport facilities;

Since the charges for metropolitan transport facilities under the Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas are not imposed on housing site preparation and housing construction projects following the implementation of relocation measures, it is asserted that transferring the charges to the Plaintiffs, who are those subject to relocation measures, on the ground that they received special supply within the housing site development project district under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, is null

Considering that the relevant provisions of the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 8251, Jan. 19, 2007) are the cost incurred in the construction and improvement of metropolitan transport facilities in the course of implementing a large-scale development project in a metropolitan area and thus increasing the value of housing sites and houses in the metropolitan area, those who are provided with housing sites and houses in the metropolitan area are also eligible for relocation measures shall not be deemed as falling under the cost of establishing basic living facilities to be provided as a basis for life to those subject to relocation measures, and even if the amount of the charges is included in the sales price of the sales contract concluded between the person subject to relocation measures and the person subject to relocation measures according to the determination of the sales price, it cannot be deemed that the liability for unjust enrichment return or tort liability arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da37374, Jan. 16, 2014).

(2) The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the expenses for appurtenant works, incidental expenses, and final survey are not all related to the construction of basic living facilities, and that the expenses for appurtenant works, supplementary works, and final survey are not included in the cost of installing basic living facilities, on the grounds that there is no relation with the construction of basic living facilities, the expenses for installing bridges, pressure stations, drainage stations, incidental works, incidental expenses, and final survey do not constitute the cost of installing basic living facilities.

As seen earlier, the part of the above 924 square meters cannot be deemed as a basic living facility, and the bridge also constitutes a basic living facility for the residents' basic living like the road as a kind of traffic facility. The Defendant’s assertion that it does not constitute a basic living facility for the citizens’ basic living as well as the basic living facility for the residents’ basic living like the road as a kind of traffic facility is without merit (However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleading in the statement No. 68 and No. 18-2, the above 924 square meters cannot be deemed as a basic living facility as seen earlier, and the part of the above 924 square meters portion cannot be deemed as being a basic living facility, and thus, the amount equivalent to the remaining ratio of the area, excluding the part corresponding to the Yongsan-Seoul Highway road from the total bridge area, among the expenses for installing the bridge, shall be recognized as the cost for creating the basic living facility).

In addition, expenses for appurtenant works, incidental expenses, and final and conclusive survey are expenses incurred in the process of installing various facilities in the entire project district of this case, and among these expenses, the expenses for appurtenant works, incidental expenses, and final and conclusive survey expenses are included in part of the expenses for appurtenant works for the installation of basic facilities. Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize the amount equivalent to the ratio of the basic facilities area to the project target area in the project district of this case from among the expenses for appurtenant works, incidental expenses, and final and conclusive survey expenses as the cost for the construction of basic facilities. Therefore, the defendant

(c) direct personnel expenses, sales and management expenses, capital expenses, or other expenses;

As seen earlier, the Defendant spent 127,023,200 won as direct labor cost (1.93% of the aggregate of site cost and creation cost), 364,94,374,000 won as sales and management cost (5.44% of the aggregate of site cost and creation cost), 770,058,346,000 won as capital cost (5.69% of the cumulative aggregate of net investments), and 16,100,487,000 won as other expenses (0.24% of the aggregate of site cost and creation cost and direct labor cost) and included it in the sale price of the housing site to the Plaintiffs, and thus, the portion related to the site cost of basic living facilities and the individual construction cost of basic living facilities in each of the above items shall be included in the installation cost of basic living facilities (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da37371, Dec. 37, 2014).

[Attachment 6] Statement of Calculation, such as Direct Labor Cost

3,149,00,00,090,000 46,03,033,588,797,739,748,787,97,787,97,787,79,74,707,97,749,70,707,97,97,973,97,747,97,987,97,947,97,987,97,947,97,97,947,947,97,947,947,97,977,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,97,99,7,97,00,00,00 of the total amount of expenses for direct use for the basic living facilities

Note 15) 28,701,083,158

Note 16) 82,459,728,759

Note 17) 173,95,838,284

Note 18) 3,637,929,209

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that in the case of capital costs of each of the above items, they cannot be deemed as an economic opportunity cost and that the defendant cannot be deemed to have benefited the equivalent amount, and that they do not constitute basic facilities installation costs because they are calculated by multiplying the amount including site cost and creation cost by a certain ratio. However, the capital cost is a cost borne by the defendant in relation to the capital to be procured and operated by the defendant for the execution of the project in this case. Among them, some of the cost is a cost borne by the defendant in relation to the capital to be financed and operated by the land cost and creation cost of basic facilities in this case, which can be deemed as the whole of the project in this case and the cost accompanied by or contributed to the installation of basic facilities (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da83902, Dec.

D) Sub-determination

Therefore, the cost of installing the basic living facilities of the instant project is a sum of KRW 1,775,897,333,744 as stated above [Attachment 6], and if the cost of creating the instant housing site is divided into KRW 7,859,639,639,50,000 after deducting KRW 1,775,897,333,744 from the cost of creating the housing site, and KRW 6,083,742,746,256 from the cost of establishing the basic living facilities, the legitimate selling price per square meter is KRW 1,716,087,07.

3) Whether the defendant's unjust enrichment is unjust

살피건대, 앞서 본 1㎡당 정당한 분양가 1,716,087원을 기준으로 원고별 정당한 분양대금을 산정한 내역은 별지 3. 부당이득금액표 중 ‘⑨ 정당한 총분양대금’의 기재와 같은바, 별지 3. 부당이득금액표 중 ‘④ 정산후 분양대금’에서 같은 표 중 ‘⑨ 정당한 총분양대금’을 공제한 금액은 같은 표 ‘⑩ 원금 중 부당이득액’의 기재와 같고, 이에 따라 원고들 등이 추가로 납입한 연체이자 또는 선납할인금을 ‘④ 정산후 분양대금’ 중 ‘⑩ 원금 중 부당이득액’의 비율에 따라 안분하여 계산한 금액이 같은 표 ‘⑫ 연체이자 또는 선납할인금 중 부당이득액’의 기재와 같은 이상 피고가 부당이득을 하였다고 볼 수 없으므로 원고들 등의 이 사건 부당이득반환청구는 이유 없다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42-1, 42-2, 42-3, 43, 46, 48, 58, 59, 23, and 29, which were the parties succeeding to the lawsuit of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 29, which were the parties succeeding to the lawsuit, dismissed the judgment of the court of first instance and the remaining part of the lawsuit against the plaintiff 2 and the non-party 2, who were the parties succeeding to the lawsuit, on the ground that the plaintiff 2 and the non-party 2, who were the parties succeeding to the lawsuit, were not entitled to the plaintiff 1 and the remaining part of the lawsuit against the plaintiff 2 and the non-party 2.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)

1) Therefore, the actual selling price per square meter of a housing site not exceeding 265 square meters is calculated when multiplying the supply price of the instant migrants’ housing site by the above gap rate in KRW 1,691,804.

(2) 1,475,882 square meters (=1,507,96 square meters - 32,114 square meters) of a road area - 19,90 square meters of a river bridge area - 32,844 square meters of a Gangwon-Seoul Expressway area (=33,768 square meters of a river bridge area - 924 square meters of a river bridge area)

3) Rule 9 of the Act on the Determination, Structure and Installation Standards of Urban Planning Facilities: (a) Major arterial roads are classified as follows: (a) Roads: Roads constituting the framework of a Si/Gun as roads to connect major areas in a Si/Gun or to cope with the mass passing traffic by linking them between a Si/Gun: (b) A auxiliary arterial roads: roads constituting the outermost of a neighboring residential area, as roads to perform a duty of congested traffic in a Si/Gun by linking the main areas in a Si/Gun with a cluster road or major traffic generating sources; (c) a roads constituting the outermost of a neighboring residential area, as roads to perform a duty of congested traffic in a neighboring residential area by linking the traffic in a neighboring residential area to a auxiliary intersection road; (d) a roads partitioning the traffic congested inside a neighboring residential area; and

4) In this respect, the issue is different from the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da109811 Decided September 4, 2014, which is included in the total cost of housing site preparation, which is an element of the cost of housing site preparation, for which the assessed value of state-owned and public land gratuitously reverted is the basis for determining the sale price.

Note 5) Total road and packing hole 65,396,00,000 x 1,423,138 m2,475,82 m2

Note 6) Total street lamps 16,102,00,000 x 1,423,138 square meters/1,475,882 square meters

Note 7) Total bridge (river) KRW 65,375,00,000 x 31,190 square meters/32,114 square meters

Note 8) Total soil construction cost of KRW 183,306,00,000 x 1,706,629 square meters/9,307,148 square meters

9) Total appurtenant work costs of KRW 18,569,00,000 x 1,706,629 square meters/9,307,148 square meters

10) Total investigation and design cost of KRW 30,000,000 x 1,706,629 square meters/9,307,148 square meters

Note 11) Total final survey expenses of KRW 6,79,00,000 x 1,706,629 square meters/9,307,148 square meters

Note 12) Total incidental expenses of KRW 7,519,00,000 x 1,706,629 square meters/9,307,148 square meters

Note 13) The total construction waste disposal cost of KRW 42,830,00,00 x 1,706,629 square meters/9,307,148 square meters

Note 14) Total reserve funds 71,617,00,000 x 1,706,629 square meters/9,307,148 square meters

Note 15) (The cost of site for the basic living facilities + KRW 465,03,596,689 + the cost of creating the basic living facilities 1,022,069,157,645) x 1.93%

Note 16) (The cost of site for basic living facilities, cost of creation, KRW 1,487,102,754,334 + Direct labor cost of KRW 28,701,083,158 relating to basic living facilities) ¡¿ 5.44%

Note 17) Total capital cost of KRW 770,058,346,00 】 (Basic living facility site cost, creation cost, direct labor cost of KRW 1,515,803,837,492 / Total site cost, creation cost, direct labor cost of KRW 6,708,536,293,00)

18) Cost of land for basic living facilities, cost of creation, direct labor cost of 1,515,803,837,492 x 0.24%