The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the area of basic living facilities, a road which a project implementer is required to provide a person subject to relocation measures with basic living facilities as stipulated in subparagraph 8 of Article 2 of the Housing Act includes roads constituting arterial facilities, i.e., roads located outside a housing complex, and roads of the same kind located outside the relevant housing complex, notwithstanding its length or width (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013); and a road which a project implementer is installed within a public works zone and is in charge of connecting a road located outside a housing complex, etc. within the relevant housing complex, etc., and is an essential facility for the achievement of the functions of a housing complex, etc. and the passage of the entire residents, and is thus included therein (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da29509, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the area of the instant basic living complex and a residential facility located within the instant project zone.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of basic living facilities and the calculation of the area.

2. Basic living facilities;