The judgment below

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

Plaintiff

T. .

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal by plaintiffs T and M

A. Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “Public Works Act”) provides that a project operator shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds as prescribed by the Presidential Decree for a person who is deprived of the basis of livelihood due to the provision of residential buildings due to the implementation of public works (hereinafter “person subject to relocation measures”).

Meanwhile, Article 40(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”) provides that “the owner of a building who does not continuously reside in the building in question from the date of public notification, etc. under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes for public works to the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of expropriation is decided” (hereinafter “unresident owner”) shall be excluded from the person subject to relocation measures. However, even in this case, a project operator shall establish and implement standards for expanding the scope of a person subject to relocation measures under the above Act and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9819, Sept. 24, 2009). However, even if a project operator is included in a person subject to relocation measures beyond the scope of a person subject to relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act and Article 40(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, which is provided to a person subject to relocation measures.