Plaintiff 1 and 26 others (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

E. E.S. (Limited Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Yong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 28, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap31572 Decided September 14, 2012

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and each of the plaintiffs' claims for revocation shall be dismissed

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in attached Form 1 "the amount of discount" and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from April 17, 2008 to September 25, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All remaining appeals by the Defendant are dismissed.

3. 7/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

Main and Preliminary, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount stated in the corresponding “claim Amount” sheet for calculation of unjust enrichment in attached Form 1 and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from the day following the date of the pertinent “final payment” to the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revocation are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The development plan was approved on February 25, 2004 by Article 2004-58 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice No. 2004-58 on February 25, 2004, which was designated as an urban development zone (title: Em.) under the Urban Development Act. The Defendant (the name was the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation, and was changed to the name as of March 17, 2004) (the name was changed to the name as of March 17, 2004) was designated as the implementer of the said urban development project (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On October 19, 2004, the Defendant announced the relocation measures for the project of this case (hereinafter “the relocation measures of this case”) on November 20, 202, the base date for the relocation measures was set on November 20. 19, 2002. The Defendant: (i) the owner of a house in this case; (ii) the owner of a house in another person’s land; (iii) the owner of a house in another person’s land; (iv) the owner of a house without permission; and (iii) the owner of a house in the project area as of the date of the public announcement of the relocation plan after the base date; and (iv) the owner of the house in this case who owns the house in his land from before the base date of the relocation measures of this case to the date of the conclusion of the contract or the ruling of expropriation; and (iii) the person who has voluntarily consulted with and consulted with the above requirements; and (iv) the former resident as of the date of the relocation measures of this case, who has not been in the project area before the date of the public announcement;

C. According to the progress of the instant project, the Defendant publicly announced the compensation plan on the date indicated in each of the “public announcement date of the compensation plan” as follows by each district.

A non-high-water district compensation plan included in the main sentence shall be incorporated into a project district pursuant to subparagraph 7 of Article 207-37 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City notification on October 18, 2007, among the districts of 3-1 district on March 24, 2004 and 3-2 district on February 15, 2006, 2006, 3-2 district on February 30, 2005.

D. As the Defendant was incorporated into the instant project district as part of the relocation measures against the Plaintiffs who lost their means of livelihood due to the expropriation of their own housing or land, etc., the Defendant decided to specially supply the apartment to be developed within the instant project district as part of the relocation measures against the Plaintiffs, and on January 10, 2008, announced the announcement on the special supply contract guidance for the Eunpyeong New Town apartment. The sale price following the said special supply was determined as the same amount as the sale price for the apartment as the sale price for the apartment.

E. Accordingly, at that time, the plaintiffs entered into each apartment unit on the "object of Sale" column of attached Table 1, which is included in the zone 1, 2, and 3 designated by the business of this case between the defendant and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "each apartment unit of this case"). The share area of each apartment unit of this case, which the plaintiffs purchased, is the same as the area indicated in the "share area of public site" column of corresponding Table of the same Table. The sale price of each apartment unit of this case is the same as the area indicated in the "share area of public site" of the same Table, and the sale price of each apartment unit of this case is the same as that indicated in the "sale price" column of the same Table as the general sale price (hereinafter referred to as "each unit sale contract of this case"). The defendant paid each unit sale price to the defendant by the date stated in the "final payment date" column of the same Table.

F. Meanwhile, during the course of the instant lawsuit, Nonparty 4 died on July 5, 201 and succeeded solely to the rights and obligations relating to the relevant apartment upon the agreement on the division of inherited property. Nonparty 8 died on July 7, 2009 and succeeded solely to the rights and obligations relating to the relevant apartment upon the agreement on the division of inherited property. Nonparty 1 died on November 26, 2008, and Nonparty 9 succeeded solely to the rights and obligations relating to the relevant apartment upon the division of inherited property.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 27, 33, Gap evidence 34-1 through 27, Gap evidence 42-1 through 27, Gap evidence 53-1 through 5, Gap evidence 70-1 through 72-7, Gap evidence 74-1 through 3, Gap evidence 75, 87, Gap evidence 105-1 through 7, Gap evidence 139-1 through 7, the purport of whole pleadings, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Whether a claim for return of unjust enrichment occurred

(1) Whether Article 78 of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) applies and partly becomes invalid

(A) The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs

Although the Defendant, as the project executor of the instant project, bears the cost of installing the basic living facilities pursuant to Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, the Defendant gains profit equivalent to the cost of installing the basic living facilities by having the Plaintiffs, who are the persons subject to the relocation measures, pay the sale price, including the cost of installing the basic living facilities, according to each sales contract of the instant case, and the Defendant suffered loss equivalent to the said amount. The Defendant must return the said amount to the Plaintiffs with

2) Defendant

Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act that provides that a project implementer shall bear the cost of establishing a basic living facility is limited to the formation of a settlement site, and there is no room to apply where housing is supplied as relocation measures pursuant to the Housing Act, etc. as in the instant project. Even if some grounds for invalidation exist as alleged by the Plaintiffs in the instant sales contract, if the Defendant was aware of such grounds, he did not take relocation measures by supplying the instant apartment, so the entire sales contract of this case should be invalidated in accordance with the legal principles on partial invalidation.

(B) Relevant legal principles

1) In full view of Article 78(1) and (4) of the former Public Works Act and Article 40(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”), a project operator may supply a housing site or house (hereinafter “special supply”) to a person subject to relocation measures under the proviso to Article 40(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Housing Act, based on the delegation of Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act. Thus, in the case of special supply, it is reasonable to view that a project operator should install a basic living facility as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act and provide a person subject to relocation measures at the project operator’s expense, and that the housing site acquired by the person subject to relocation measures through special supply or the market price of the housing is not given any opportunity or possibility to gain profits from the market price.

In addition, the purpose of the former Public Works Act is to promote the promotion of public welfare and the appropriate protection of property rights through the efficient implementation of public works by prescribing matters concerning compensation for losses incurred by the acquisition or use of land, etc. required for public works through consultation or expropriation. Measures for resettlement under the said Act is a system that is prepared to restore the previous living conditions to those subject to relocation measures who lose their base of livelihood by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public works and ensure a living worthy of human dignity at the same time. As such, Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act, which provides for the duty to establish and implement relocation measures, and Article 78(4) of the same Act, which provides for the contents of the measures for resettlement, is a mandatory law that can not be excluded from the application by agreement of the parties

Therefore, if a person subject to relocation measures was to pay the project operator, etc. the cost of installing basic living facilities as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act by including the cost of installing basic living facilities in the sale price under a special supply contract for a housing site or housing contract concluded between a person subject to relocation measures and a project operator or a supplier under his/her arrangement, the special supply contract violates Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which is a mandatory law, and becomes null and void. If a project operator directly supplies a housing site or a house, the portion of the cost of installing basic living facilities included in the sale price in the special supply contract for a housing site or a house is exempted from the disbursement of the amount equivalent to the cost of installing basic living facilities to be borne by the project operator under the above provision. Ultimately, the project operator is obligated to return the amount to the person subject to relocation measures as unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63096, Jun. 23, 2011).

2) Meanwhile, Article 137 of the Civil Act provides that "if a part of a legal act is null and void, such part shall be null and void. However, if a part of the legal act is deemed null and void even if it does not exist, the remaining part shall not be null and void." This is a voluntary provision that applies in the area governed by the principle of autonomy of procedure. Thus, if a part of the legal act is null and void because it violates the validity provision, which is a mandatory provision, and thus becomes null and void, the part shall be null and void if the individual law has the provisions on the validity of a part, and if there is no such provision, it shall be complied with, in principle, Article 137 of the Civil Act shall apply, but if the remaining part is null and void in light of the legislative purport of the law with the relevant validity provision and its validity provision, it shall not be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da23425, Jul. 22, 2010, etc.).

(C) Determination

1) The fact that each special supply contract for a person subject to relocation measures is determined as the same amount as the sale price of an apartment under a general supply contract is determined as above. In the case of a special supply of housing, the construction contractor is supplied with a housing site at a price not deducted from the installation cost of basic living facilities from the project implementer of the housing site development project and sold the housing site in lots, including the sale price. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the instant case, each sale price that the plaintiffs paid to the defendant according to each sale contract of this case shall be deemed to include the installation cost of basic living facilities. In light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, if the plaintiffs are the person subject to relocation measures, the part of each sale contract of this case, including the installation cost of basic living facilities, is null and void as it violates Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act

2) Meanwhile, the facts acknowledged above are as follows, i.e., ① the Defendant established a plan to take measures for the special supply of the apartment of this case among various relocation measures that can be selected at its own discretion, ② the sales price of this case is calculated by the Defendant, and the intent of the Plaintiffs is deemed not to have been reflected, and ③ the entire sales contract of this case is deemed null and void on the ground that each of the sales contracts of this case becomes null and void, even though it is apparent the intention to conclude each of the sales contracts of this case as a person subject to the relocation measures who will lose their base of life due to the public works, each of the sales contracts of this case is withdrawn from the apartment of this case and returned to the original living condition to the person subject to the relocation measures, and at the same time, it results in a violation of the purpose of the former Public Works Act to guarantee a life worthy of human dignity. In full view of the above, each of the sales contracts of this case is null and void only the part corresponding to the installation cost of basic living facilities of each of the sales prices of this case, but also the remainder.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the cost of installing basic living facilities included in the sales price of each of the instant sales prices to the Plaintiffs who are subject to the relocation measures.

(2) Whether Plaintiff 1 et al. constitutes a person subject to relocation measures

(A) The party's assertion

1) The plaintiffs

Since the Defendant, who is a project executor, selects the Plaintiffs as the subject of the relocation measures after self-examination as to whether they correspond to the criteria for the relocation measures of this case and supplied each apartment of this case, all of the Plaintiffs are eligible to file a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of installation cost of basic living facilities. Even if the Plaintiffs cannot be seen as eligible for the relocation measures solely based on the Defendant’s determination of the subject of the relocation measures and the conclusion of sales contract, the base date for the relocation measures of this case is the public announcement date of each district compensation plan, and Article 6 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act includes the owner of a building without permission or report before January 24, 1989, and all of the Plaintiffs are eligible for the relocation measures.

2) Defendant

Among the plaintiffs, the fact that the plaintiff 11 received special supply of an apartment unit developed in the project district of this case. However, it cannot be known whether the above plaintiff received special supply of an apartment unit as a person subject to the relocation measures prescribed by the former Public Works Act. ② The requirements for the reason that the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 18, 18, 11, and 21 are disqualified as a person subject to the relocation measures prescribed by the former Public Works Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, namely, the building owner who did not reside continuously from the base date of relocation measures to the date of conclusion of each sale contract of this case. It does not constitute a person subject to the relocation measures under the former Public Works Act. ③ In particular, the plaintiff 10 transferred to the non-party 7 the rights and obligations with respect to the apartment unit that was specially supplied by the defendant, but only the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment related to the cost of the basic facilities.

(B) Criteria for persons subject to relocation measures, base date of relocation measures, and acquisition date of unauthorized buildings;

1) Criteria for determining a person subject to relocation measures

Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act provides that a project implementer shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, for those who lose their base of livelihood due to the implementation of public works. Meanwhile, Article 40(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “the owner of a building constructed without obtaining permission or filing a report on a building to be permitted or constructed after filing a report” (Article 1; hereinafter “owner of a building without permission”) and “the owner of a building who does not continue to reside in the building from the date of public announcement, etc. under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes for public works until the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation” (Article 2(2)). However, even in this case, it is permissible for a project implementer to establish and implement standards for expanding the scope of persons subject to relocation measures stipulated under the said Act and subordinate statutes.

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 former Public Works Act and Article 40(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the relocation measures provided to an unresident owner who is not a person subject to relocation measures as prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes are not a duty under the Act and subordinate statutes, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the project operator is obligated to install basic living facilities for such unresident pursuant to Article 78(4) of the Public Works Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da109811, Sept. 4, 2014).

Therefore, whether the plaintiffs are eligible for relocation measures should be determined individually in accordance with the above provisions.

2) The meaning of “date of public notice, etc. under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public works” and determination of the base date for relocation measures

In full view of the language, content, and legislative intent of Article 78 (1) of the former Public Works Act and Article 40 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the "date of public notice, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public project" under Article 40 (3) 2 of the former Public Works Act means the criteria for determining persons who are not those subject to relocation measures and those who are not those subject to relocation measures. In full view of these legal principles and the contents of the public notice of the relocation criteria of this case, there is no ground to regard the "date of public notice, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public project" as the base date of the relocation measures determined by the defendant as the "date of public project" under Article 78 (1) of the former Public Works Act and Article 40 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In addition, the relocation measures of this case established by the defendant as of November 20, 2002 shall be determined as the base date of the relocation plan.

Therefore, in the case of this case, the public announcement date of each district compensation plan in the Pyeongtaek New Town development zone should be deemed to be the “date of public announcement, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public works” as stipulated in Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act.

3) The meaning of "the owner of a building constructed without obtaining a building permit or filing a report on January 24, 1989" means "the owner of a building constructed without obtaining a building permit or filing a report."

Article 6 of the Addenda to the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that “The owner of a building constructed without obtaining permission or filing a report for construction as of January 24, 1989 without obtaining such permission or filing a report shall be included in the person subject to relocation measures, notwithstanding Article 40(3)1. To this end, the Defendant asserts that an unauthorized building already constructed as of January 24, 1989 should be acquired before the former, in order to fall under Article 6 of the Addenda. However, on January 24, 1989 as stipulated in Article 6 of the foregoing Addenda, only the time the building was constructed without permission, but not limited until the time the ownership is acquired (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da109811, Sept. 4, 2014).

Therefore, if an owner of an unauthorized building constructed before January 24, 1989 satisfies the requirements of residence as of the base date of the relocation measures for the unauthorized building (public notice date of the compensation plan), it constitutes a person subject to the relocation measures, and it does not necessarily have to acquire the ownership before January 24, 1989.

(C) Review by each plaintiff

1) The remaining plaintiffs except the disputing plaintiffs

Since there is no dispute between the parties with respect to the fact that the above plaintiffs owned and resided in the project district of this case, and there is no reason to deem that the above plaintiffs constitute grounds for exclusion under Article 40(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, the above plaintiffs are subject to relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act

2) The plaintiffs in dispute

As indicated below, the Plaintiffs constitute persons subject to relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act, Article 40(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 6 of the Addenda of the same Act.

본문내 포함된 표 순번 성 명 피고주장 비대상 사유 기준일(지구) 구 공익사업법상 이주대책대상자 해당 여부(주1) 1 원고 1 이주대책기준일 이후 취득 및 거주 2006. 2. 15.(3-1) 원고가 2005. 4. 29. (주소 1 생략) 소재 주택을 취득한 후 2005. 4. 29.부터 거주하였다(갑 제107호증의 1 내지 3). 2 원고 2 이주대책기준일 이후 취득 및 거주 2006. 2. 15.(3-1) 원고가 2005. 1. 28. (주소 2 생략) 소재 주택을 취득하였고, 2005. 1. 26.부터 거주하였다(갑 제108호증의 1 내지 3). 3 원고 3 이주대책기준일 이후 취득 및 거주 2004. 6. 24.(1) 원고가 2003. 9. 27. (주소 3 생략) 소재 주택을 취득하였고, 2003. 9. 22.부터 거주하였다(갑 제109호증의 1 내지 4). 4 원고 4 이주대책기준일 이후 취득 및 거주 / 무허가 건물 2004. 6. 24.(1) 원고가 2003. 10. 7. (주소 4 생략) 소재 무허가 주택(1982. 4. 8. 이전 건축)을 취득하고 2003. 10. 4.부터 거주하였다(갑 제110호증의 1 내지 6). 5 원고 5 이주대책기준일 이후 취득 및 거주 / 무허가 건물 2005. 12. 30.(3-2) 원고가 2002. 11. 20. 이전에 (주소 5 생략)소재 무허가 주택(1982. 4. 8. 이전 건축)을 취득하였고, 2004. 6. 22.부터 거주하였다(갑 제111호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제119호증). 10 원고 10 무허가 건물 2004. 6. 24.(1) 원고가 1992. 4. 30. (주소 6 생략) 소재 무허가 주택(1965.경 건축)을 배우자 소외 5로부터 상속받았고, 1968. 10. 이전부터 거주하였다(갑 제112호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제120호증의 1, 2). 11 원고 11 이주대책대상자인지 알 수 없음 2007. 10. 18.(3-2 중 기자촌) 원고가 1999. 12. 29. (주소 7 생략)소재 주택을 취득하였고, 2006. 12. 14.부터 거주하여 2007. 11. 12. 피고와 수용협의계약을 체결하고 2008. 1. 24.까지 위 건물에서 거주하였으므로, 원고를 이주대책기준에서 정한 이주대책대상자로 봄이 타당하다. 달리 원고가 특별공급을 받을 사유에 관한 피고의 주장, 입증이 없다(갑 제34호증의 11, 갑 제113호증의 1 내지 4). 12 원고 12 무허가 건물 2004. 6. 24.(1) 원고가 2004. 6. 4. (주소 8 생략) 소재 무허가 주택(1969.경 건축)을 아버지 소외 2로부터 상속받았고, 1990. 5. 14.부터 거주하였다(갑 제114호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제121호증의 1 내지 4). 18 원고 18 이주대책기준일 이후 거주 2006. 2. 15.(3-1) 원고가 2002. 11. 1. (주소 9 생략) 소재 주택을 취득하였고, 2003. 2. 24.부터 거주하였다(갑 제115호증의 1 내지 3). 20 소외 9 이주대책기준일 이후 거주 / 무허가건물 2004. 6. 24.(1) 원고의 모 망 소외 1이 1993. 10. 29. (주소 10 생략) 소재 무허가 주택(1982. 4. 8. 이전 건축)을 취득하였고, 2002. 11. 25.부터 거주하였다(갑 제116호증의 1 내지 3). 21 원고 21 이주대책기준일 이후 거주 2004. 6. 24.(1) 원고가 2001. 9. 6. (주소 11 생략) 소재 주택을 취득하였고, 2003. 1. 11.부터 거주하였다(갑 제117호증의 1 내지 3).

1) Whether a person is subject to relocation measures under the former Public Works Act

3) As to the assertion that the assignment of claims is null and void by a litigation trust (Plaintiff 10)

According to Gap evidence Nos. 71-1 through 3, the plaintiff 10 transferred the rights and obligations related to the sales contract for the apartment of this case to the non-party 7, and the non-party 7 transferred the rights and obligations related to the sales contract for the apartment of this case to the non-party 7, and on May 14, 2010, the non-party 7 transferred the right to return the amount included in the sales price to the plaintiff 10 and notified the defendant of the transfer.

However, considering that there is controversy as to whether Plaintiff 10 had already filed the instant lawsuit on May 20, 2009, before receiving the assignment of claim from Nonparty 7, and whether Plaintiff 10’s right to the instant apartment sale contract transferred to Nonparty 7 includes the right to claim the return of the amount equivalent to the cost of installing basic living facilities against the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the said assignment of claim was made mainly with the intention of enabling the said transfer of claim to proceed with litigation. The Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B. Scope of unjust enrichment

(1) Basic legal principles

The purpose of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act is to provide the person subject to relocation measures with a basis of living. As such, “basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities” under the said provision refers to roads, water supply and drainage facilities, electric facilities, telecommunications facilities, gas facilities, district heating facilities, etc., which are installed by a project operator who implements a housing construction project or a housing site development project under the relevant statutes, such as Article 23 of the Housing Act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63089, 63096, Jun. 23, 2011, etc.).

(2) Method of calculating unjust enrichment and basic data

(A) Method of calculating unjust enrichment

In the case of special supply of housing such as the instant sales contract, apartment construction business operators, or project operators are supplied with housing sites at a price at which the basic cost of living facilities is not deducted and sold by including the cost of housing sites in the sales price. Therefore, the sales price paid by the Plaintiffs should be deemed to include the “basic cost of living facilities” in the sales price paid by the Plaintiffs.

With regard to the method of calculation, the amount of unjust enrichment that the defendant must return to the plaintiffs is equivalent to the cost of installing the basic living facilities for the project of this case, which is "total sum of the cost of installing the living facilities for the project of this case 】 The area of each site of this case / the apartment purchased by the plaintiffs / the price supply area among the entire site area for the project of this case 2). The cost of installing the basic living facilities is the sum of the cost of the basic living facilities (=total site cost x (total site area / total site area)), ② cost of creating the basic living facilities, ③ direct personnel expenses for the basic living facilities, sales management expenses, capital expenses, etc.

(b) Basic data for calculation;

In addition to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 91, Eul evidence Nos. 91, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8, the entire area of the instant project district is 3,492,421 square meters, and 1,873,463 square meters of which are 1,87,463 square meters of which are dedicated supply area, and the total project cost for the creation of housing sites among the instant projects can be acknowledged as follows.

3,835,630,315,962 development cost 492,35,356,786,482 direct personnel expenses 10,028,713,448 relocation expenses 32,323,092,482, indirect expenses sales expenses and general management expenses 49,384,829,665 capital expenses 655,461,460,260,260, total of 00 other expenses

(3) Individual review of whether it constitutes a basic living facility and of its cost;

(A) The plaintiffs' assertion

Under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the plaintiffs' basic living facilities cost to be borne by the defendant per square meter of each site area of this case is the basic living facilities cost of 1,74,013,013,517,94 won, and the cost of creating basic living facilities of 435,38,057,242 won (including road, water supply and drainage construction cost, electrical construction cost, electricity treatment cost, urban gas cost, waste water supply cost, sewage treatment cost, sewage generation cost, sewage distribution cost, power pump and water pipe construction cost, metropolitan transportation improvement cost, actual improvement cost, subway niven construction cost, hill jun hill, green belt, neighboring park, small park, river, river, reservoir, and reservoir) and the amount calculated by multiplying the total cost of living facilities of this case by the total cost of 1,744,00,000,000,000 won, 361,7467,2847, 284,767, and 47,07,284, etc.

(b) Site costs for basic living facilities;

1) Facts of recognition

In addition to each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 8, the fact that the area of a site where a basic living facility is installed is 475,695 square meters on a road may be recognized. Therefore, the basic living facility cost is 522,442,787,725 won (i.e., the total site cost of KRW 3,835,630,315,962 x the total site cost of KRW 475,695 square meters / the total site area of the site where a basic living facility is installed / the total site area of KRW 3,492,421 square meters, and the area of a site below the source)

As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted that, since the road area in the instant project district was changed to 496,85.6 square meters after the date of the change (as of September 18, 2007 or October 9 of the same year, the road area at the time is changed to 491,106 square meters), it should be calculated on the basis that the road area at the time is changed to 491,106 square meters. Even if it is not so, even if it is not so, it should be calculated on the basis that 9,002 square meters of free area equivalent to 20% of each of the land for quasi-residential land, neighborhood living facilities, and flower facilities should be included in the road site by recognizing the road area as 484,697 square meters.

In addition to the purport of pleading in the statement Nos. 1, 33, 58, 75, 87, 135, and Nos. 1 and 3, the area of the road in the project district of this case was 451,624 square meters out of the total project area 3,495,248 square meters at the time of the public announcement of the first land use plan on the project district of this case (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2004-58), but the development cost of the project district of this case was 491,106 square meters out of the total project area of 3,495,248 square meters and the development cost of the project district of this case was 207-377, Oct. 18, 2007, the total project area of the project district of this case was 205 square meters, and the public announcement of the change of the development cost of the project district of this case was 201,294.727.

In full view of these circumstances, it is confirmed that the above change in the area of the road was not likely to affect the cost of housing site development in light of the fact that the contents of the project plan in this case were partially modified according to each of the above changes, and the area of the road was also modified, but after October 2007, the total area of the project was maintained, and that the cost of housing site development in the project district in this case could not have been changed following the change in the development cost following the change in the project plan after the disclosure of the project plan. Meanwhile, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the free area of 9,002 square meters equivalent to 20% of the site of quasi-residential land, neighborhood living facilities, and flower facilities constituted roads connected

Therefore, the cost of installing basic living facilities included in the housing site development cost in the instant project district shall be calculated on the basis of the land use plan at the time when the housing site development cost is disclosed, on the premise that the road area is 475,695 square meters.

2) Individual review

A) Road facilities

① Defendant’s assertion

Pursuant to Article 24(4) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, the scope of roads which are basic living facilities under the former Public Works Act shall be limited to cases where the length exceeds 200 meters, and in particular, a housing complex under Article 2(6) of the Housing Act can be divided into roads with a width of at least 8 meters. Thus, roads with a width of less than 8 meters are merely roads within a housing complex and are not arterial facilities.

In addition, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act and Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Regulations on Housing Construction Standards, etc. among roads within the instant project zone, such as 1 line of national highways and 39 national highways, among roads within the instant project zone. The roads are classified as a key facility under the Housing Act, and there is no key facility under the Housing Act, if the roads are classified as prescribed in attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.

(2) Judgment

First of all, we examine whether a road as an arterial facility under Article 23 of the Housing Act should be considered within the scope of Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Housing Act and Article 24 (4) [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act as alleged above by the defendant.

A road which a project executor is required to provide a basic living facility to a person subject to relocation measures shall include, regardless of its length or width, all the roads constituting arterial facilities as defined in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Housing Act, namely, roads connected to the same road outside the relevant housing complex (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da79415, Feb. 13, 2014; 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

In addition, we examine the argument that the part of roads in the project district of this case is not an arterial road but a key facility road, i.e., a key facility.

According to Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction, and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, the term roads are roads prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, which are cities and Gun planning facilities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which are roads prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, national roads under the Road Act, Special Metropolitan City roads, Metropolitan City roads, Metropolitan Cities or Do roads, and roads corresponding thereto (hereinafter referred to as “period roads under the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act”), and roads corresponding thereto, etc. which are installed under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, are clearly defined as roads to be classified as the term roads under the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.

그러나 ⒜ 이 사건 사업구역과 같이 수 개의 주택단지가 결합되어 동시에 개발되고 전체를 위한 생활기본시설이 설치되어 그 설치비용이 전체의 택지비에 포함되어 산정된 경우에는 그 사업구역 내의 개개의 주택단지별로 생활기본시설 설치비용이 포함된 택지비 부분만을 구분하여 산정하는 것이 사실상 불가능하고 무의미하므로 그 범위를 확대하여 이 사건 사업구역 전체를 기준으로 생활기본시설의 범위를 파악하는 것이 타당하다고 보인다다. ⒝ 따라서 이 사건 사업지구 내의 기간시설과 사업구역 밖의 같은 종류의 기간시설을 연결시키는 도로를 간선시설인 도로라고 본다면, 위 주택법 시행령에 따른 기간도로 중 상당 부분이 간선시설인 도로의 역할을 하게 된다. ⒞ 피고는 이 사건 사업계획에 따라 종전에 설치된 면적 252,899㎡ 상당의 도로를 철거하고 새롭게 면적 475,695㎡ 상당의 도로를 설치하였는데, 기존 도로 252,899㎡는 국·공유지로 피고에게 무상귀속되었으나, 국·공유지 평가액은 이 사건 총 택지비에 포함되었고, 이 사건 사업이 없었더라면 기존 도로를 이용할 수 있었던 이주대책대상자에게 피고가 이 사건 사업을 진행함에 있어 종래에 설치된 위 시설들을 철거하고 다시 이를 새롭게 조성하기로 결정하였다는 이유만으로 그 설치비용을 전가하는 것은 부당하다. ⒟ 주택단지 외부의 기간시설에 연결하는 간선시설만을 설치할지, 사업구역 내에 새로운 기간시설을 설치할지의 선택은 사업시행자인 피고가 하는데 그 선택 여부에 따라 이주대책대상자들의 비용부담 여부가 결정되는 것은 불합리하다. ⒠ 피고는 도로 설치비용이 포함된 이 사건 총 택지비를 기초로 이 사건 각 분양대금을 산정한 것으로 보이고 지방자치단체 등 제3자가 위 설치비용을 실제로 부담하였다는 것을 인정할 만한 자료가 없다. ⒡ 이 사건 사업구역 내 도로는 그 전체가 그물망처럼 연결되어 이 사건 사업구역 밖의 기간도로로 연결되는 간선도로로서의 기능을 수행하고 있다.

In light of such circumstances, if the Defendant installed a key road under the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act in the instant project zone instead of installing a main road and carried out the functions of arterial facilities and basic living facilities, it is reasonable to interpret that the term is included in the arterial facilities which are the basic living facilities. This part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

(b)water supply facilities;

The Plaintiffs asserted that the site cost for water supply facilities should be included in the site cost for basic facilities for living, and thus, according to the statement in the evidence No. 87, the fact that the site area for water supply facilities is 7,853.9 square meters, can be recognized, and as seen earlier, that the water supply facilities are included in the basic facilities for living.

However, if Gap evidence Nos. 75 and 87 show the overall purport of the pleadings, it is also recognized that the area of the water supply facility has not been appropriated separately on the ground that the area overlaps with the neighboring park in the instant project area.

In full view of all these circumstances, the water supply facility of the instant project appears to have been buried and installed on the underground of a neighboring park in the instant project area, and the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the land of the said 7,853.9 square meters is included in the calculation of the sale price for the water supply facilities, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

(c) buffer greenbelts, connected green areas, neighborhood parks, small parks;

The plaintiffs asserts that the above facilities, including parks and green areas, must be built by the defendant, the implementer of the project in this case, pursuant to Article 25 of the Special Act on the Construction of Bogeumjari Housing, etc. and Article 14 of the Urban Park and Green Areas Act, etc., also constitute basic living facilities under

However, it is apparent that the above facilities are not "arterial facilities" performing the function of linking the inside and outside of the project area of this case, and they are convenience facilities or welfare facilities exceeding the scope of "basic living facilities" provided for the restoration of their original living conditions to those who lose their base of life by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public works.

The above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(d) automobile depotss, rivers and reservoirs;

The plaintiffs claim that automobile depots are roads, which are included in basic living facilities under the former Public Works Act, as drainage facilities.

However, the automobile depots can not be deemed to be included in the main road which performs the functions of linking the inside and outside of the instant project area. ② There is no evidence to acknowledge that the river is part of the drainage facilities. ③ The detention basin temporarily stores the facilities to adjust the quantity of the inside and the lower land and to discharge it to the river (Article 118 of the Rules on the Determination, Structure, and Standards of Urban and Gun Planning Facilities) and to temporarily store them to the river (Article 118 of the Rules on the Determination, Structure, and Installation Standards of Urban and Gun Planning Facilities) cannot be deemed to constitute the main arterial facilities

The above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(c) Costs of creating basic living facilities;

1) Facts of recognition

In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in the items in Gap evidence 43, Gap evidence 92 through 95, Gap evidence 98 through 103, Eul evidence 1 through 8, the creation cost of basic living facilities shall be 151,535,378,585 as follows:

The expenses for the classification of the table in the main sentence shall be 193,00,000,003,003,003,003,003,000 for sewage treatment charges of KRW 32,493,31,633,636, 926, 327 gas supply charges of KRW 1,657,50,50,535,78,58585,085 of the cost for electricity treatment charges of KRW 32,493,31,636, 327 gas supply charges of KRW 1,657,00,50,00 for electricity treatment charges of KRW 10,269,00,00,00 for electricity treatment charges of KRW 32,493,31,6336,926, 327 gas supply charges of KRW 1,657,111,500,50

(ii) individual review of whether the cost of creating the basic living facilities constitutes the cost of creation;

(a) The construction cost of roads, water supply and sewerage construction cost, pressure pumps and water pipes, the cost of supplying pipes, the cost of supplying pipes, the cost of expanding drain pipes, and the cost of sewage treatment;

In addition to the whole purport of the arguments cited earlier, with respect to the construction cost of roads, water supply and sewerage construction cost, pressure pumps, and water supply and sewerage construction cost of the main facilities to be installed when the defendant implements the project of this case under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Act, the fact that the construction cost is the construction cost actually borne by the defendant according to the details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or the approved project plan, or through consultation with the local government, which is the legal obligor, etc., and the charges for the extension of water supply and sewerage construction cost, the charges for sewage treatment, which are charges and charges imposed on the defendant for the new construction or extension of the water supply and sewerage facilities, which are the main facilities newly required to be newly installed as the project of this case under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, including the Sewerage Act, and administrative dispositions by the administrative agencies.

B. Electrical construction costs, telecommunications construction costs, urban gas construction costs

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., electricity, telecommunications, and urban gas facilities fall under the main facilities to be installed when the Defendant implements the instant project under the Housing Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. In the case of gas and telecommunications facilities, the key facilities within the instant project area are included in the scope of the basic facilities under the former Public Works Act. ② The Defendant concluded a contract for electrical construction and telecommunications construction of the instant project, and paid 32,493,31,633 won to the contractor as electrical construction cost, and 3,474,926,322 won as telecommunications construction cost. The underground installation cost includes 32,493,31,633 won as well as underground installation cost, but the underground installation cost of the electric facilities can be deemed as the method of installing the main facilities under the relevant local conditions. ③ The Defendant actually assumed the construction cost of each of the instant urban gas facilities under the former Public Works Act, including the cost of each of the instant telecommunications facilities.

C) The Reinforcement cost, the hilling maintenance cost, and the actual construction cost

The plaintiffs claim that the strengthening construction cost of subway department, the maintenance cost of Chang hillcheon, and the actual construction cost constituted the basic construction cost of living facilities.

In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 43 and evidence Nos. 43 and 8, with respect to soundproof tunnels installed as a means of noise reduction by the analysis of environmental impacts of the project of this case, the cost of the strengthening of the pole in consultation with the subway Corporation is required as a result of the review of the stability of the existing intersections in relation to soundproof tunnels installed as a means of noise reduction by the analysis of environmental impacts of the project of this case, and the cost of the maintenance of Changcheoncheon is the cost of the installation of substitute facilities in the Changcheoncheon River as the cost of the installation of substitute facilities in the Changcheon River Zone according to the removal of military facilities. The actual construction cost is the cost of the construction cost of the subway department 1, 2000, which was paid to restore the actual opening of the project area of this case. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above recognition alone constitutes an arterial facilities installation cost of the defendant in relation to the construction cost of the subway department 1, 2000.

The above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

D)the cost of construction bypassing roads in unification;

Although the plaintiffs claim that the construction cost of the bypass road corresponds to the construction cost of basic living facilities due to unification, it is insufficient to recognize that the bypass road constitutes basic living facilities as a main road that performs the function of connecting the bypass road with the passage outside of the project area in this case due to unification, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(e) Contributions to improve metropolitan transportation;

① The Plaintiffs asserts that the contributions to improve metropolitan transportation are also included in the cost of creating basic living facilities for the instant project.

In full view of the construction cost of roads installed outside the Saemangeum Project District, not included in the construction cost of “basic living facilities at an ordinary level” under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, and Articles 2, 7-2, and 11 of the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 11184, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter “former Intercity Transport Act”); Articles 9, 16-2, and 16-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23755, Apr. 27, 2012) and the legislative intent of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas, the improvement cost of the charges for intercity transport facilities or the charges for the improvement of the charges for metropolitan transport facilities does not constitute “basic living facilities at an ordinary level” under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act.

(2) In addition, since the charges for metropolitan transport facilities are exempted for a housing site development project in accordance with the implementation of relocation measures under Article 11-2 (1) of the former Metropolitan Transport Act, where a project implementer imposes on a person who purchases a house in accordance with relocation measures the amount equivalent to the charges, the relevant provision is null and void. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the transfer of the charges for metropolitan transport facilities to the Plaintiffs constitutes a tort violating Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act or Article 11-2 (1) of the Metropolitan Transport Act.

Article 11-2 (1) 3 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss thereof provides that a housing site and a housing construction project shall be exempted in accordance with the implementation of relocation measures under Article 8 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss thereof. However, this provision merely provides that a Mayor/Do Governor, who is the authority imposing charges for metropolitan transport facilities, shall exempt the operator of a development project from charges for metropolitan transport facilities for the creation of a housing site and the construction of a housing site in accordance with the implementation of relocation measures, to reduce the burden of payment of the operator of the development project. In cases where the operator of a development project actually paid the charges for metropolitan transport facilities in the course of the creation of a housing site and the construction of a house, even though the number of buyers includes a person subject to relocation measures, it does not be deemed that the charges actually paid are excluded from the calculation of the housing site and the housing sale price of the person subject to relocation measures under Article 11-2 (1) 3 of the former Metropolitan Transport Act.

(f) Other net construction costs;

The plaintiffs asserts that since basic living facilities installation costs include 104,469,893,883 won, excluding the construction cost of the above (a) through (e), from among the total construction cost of housing site development costs, the total construction cost shall be included in the construction cost of basic living facilities in the proportion of the total project area of the above amount to the construction cost of basic living facilities.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the statement of evidence No. 43 contains the installation cost of arterial facilities to be installed by the defendant under the related laws, such as the Housing Act, in the other net construction cost of the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. The plaintiffs' above assertion

3) Determination of the plaintiffs' assertion on the appraised value of state-owned or public land

The plaintiffs asserts that the defendant's inclusion of the assessed value of state-owned or public land 244,87,024,326 won in the assessed value of the state-owned or public land acquired without compensation is in violation of the "standards and applicable methods for calculating and applying the assessed value of the public housing site development cost" as prescribed by the notification of the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above assessed value should be excluded from the assessed

According to the evidence No. 3, the fact that the Defendant included KRW 244,87,024,326 in the assessed value of the State-owned or public land is recognized as having been included in the assessed value of the State-owned or public land. However, in the case of a road among the State-owned or public land, it may be deemed that it was gratuitously reverted to the Defendant with a new public facility installed with permission for development activities under Article 65 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 66 of the Urban Development Act, but there is no evidence to deem that the remaining state-owned or public land has been gratuitously reverted to the Defendant. Therefore, the above circumstance alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant included the assessed value of the State-owned or public land in the assessed value of the housing site in the assessed value of the housing site, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Even if the Defendant acquired state-owned and public land without compensation, according to the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant project, which was promoted based on the Urban Development Act, was originally included in the public site under Article 2 subparagraph 3-2 (e) of the Housing Act. However, pursuant to subparagraph 2 of the Addenda of the said Act, the said provision was applied to the instant project, which was approved by the first project plan after the enforcement of the said Act, and is thus subject to the approval of the project plan before that time. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the Defendant did not partially apply the “standard and method of calculating the cost of creating public housing sites” as to this part.

This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(D) Direct personnel expenses, etc. for basic living facilities

(a) direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, or general management expenses;

In addition to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 43, 58, and Eul evidence No. 8, among the project costs of this case, the direct personnel expenses among the project costs of this case shall be multiplied by 0.23% of the direct personnel expenses determined by the defendant. Since sales and general personnel expenses shall be multiplied by 1.13% of the total amount of site expenses, development expenses, direct personnel expenses, and relocation expenses, and sales and general management expenses determined by the defendant, among the project costs of this case, each calculated by multiplying the total amount of the site expenses, development expenses, direct personnel expenses, and relocation expenses by 1.13% of the sales and general management expenses determined by the defendant. Thus, the direct personnel expenses and development expenses for the living facilities mentioned above shall be included in the construction expenses for the basic living facilities that the defendant appropriated

The facts as seen earlier are that the site cost for the basic living facilities pertaining to the instant project is KRW 522,42,787,725, and the cost for the creation of the basic living facilities is 151,535,378,585. As such, the direct labor cost related to the cost for the installation of the basic living facilities is KRW 1,550,149,783 [=673,978,166,310 + KRW 522,42,47,787,725 + KRW 151,537,378,5858,585] x 0.23% of the cost for the construction of the basic living facilities; the sales cost and general management cost are KRW 7,63,469,971 [=675,528,316,93 of the cost for the basic living facilities + KRW 527,537,515,757,7

(ii) capital costs;

In addition to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 43, 58, and Eul evidence No. 8, among the total housing site costs of this case, it can be acknowledged that the amount of capital expenses for each of the total housing site costs of this case multiplied by 4.63% of the capital cost rate by the date of completion of the project of this case, and that the total amount of land, construction cost, and relocation measures cost is 3) 4,360,310,310,194,926 won and total amount of capital cost of this case are 65,461,040,260.

Therefore, when calculating capital costs related to the cost of installing basic living facilities among the total capital cost of the project of this case, 101,315,367,543 won [the total capital cost = 655,461,040,260 won + (the cost of site for basic living facilities + KRW 522,442,787,725 won + (the cost of creating basic living facilities + KRW 151,535,378,585 won) / the total cost of site, creation cost, relocation measures cost, 4,360,310,194,926]

3) Therefore, direct personnel expenses related to the basic living facilities, sales expenses and general management expenses related to the basic living facilities, 7,633,469,971 won, and capital expenses related to the basic living facilities, 101,315,367,543 won shall be included in the cost of the basic living facilities.

C. Sub-committee

(1) Costs of installing basic living facilities per 1 square meter of each site area of the instant case

Ultimately, the cost of establishing the basic living facilities of the instant project is KRW 522,442,787,725; ② cost of creating the basic living facilities; ② cost of establishing the basic living facilities; ③ direct labor cost of KRW 1,550,149,78,783; sales cost of KRW 7,63,469,971; and capital cost of KRW 101,315,367,367; and KRW 784,47,153,607; and KRW 1,873,463 square meters; ② cost of installing the basic living facilities per one square meter of the total site area in the instant project area is KRW 418,731,731 (i.e., cost of installing the basic living facilities).

(2) Calculation of unjust enrichment

The amount of unjust enrichment made by the Defendant by the Plaintiff, who is a person subject to relocation measures, shall be as indicated in the column for “personal rent” corresponding to the attached Table 1 for calculation of unjust enrichment by multiplying the installation cost of basic living facilities per 1 square meter per each site area of this case by 41

Meanwhile, Article 748(2) of the Civil Act provides that “A malicious beneficiary shall compensate for any loss sustained by return with interest added thereto.” Article 749(2) of the same Act provides that “When a bona fide beneficiary loses, the bona fide beneficiary shall be deemed a malicious beneficiary from the time he/she files the lawsuit.” In such cases, the beneficiary shall prove that the beneficiary is a malicious beneficiary from the time he/she files the lawsuit, and “when he/she files a lawsuit” refers to the time when the duplicate of the complaint is served on the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da119481, Feb. 13, 2014, etc.). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs in this case is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was a malicious beneficiary prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs interest or delay damages calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 17, 2008, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform the obligation, from April 17, 2008, on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served.

4. The judgment on the preliminary claim (excluding the portion cited in the main claim);

In addition, even if the Defendant’s unjust enrichment is not acknowledged, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant had a duty to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages on the ground that they did not comply with the obligation by promising the Plaintiffs to supply an apartment building at a lower level than the general sale price, or committed tort such as inducing the Plaintiffs to comply with the consultation compensation, thereby causing considerable damages to the Plaintiffs regarding the cost of basic living facilities.

The contents of Gap's 36 evidence, Gap's 41-1 and 2 are that supplying apartment at a price lower than the general sale price between the defendant and the plaintiffs is subject to the sales contract, and it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is liable for the defendant to supply apartment at a price lower than the general sale price, or that the defendant was deceiving the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. The plaintiffs' above assertion based on this premise is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Each of the plaintiffs' primary claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and all of the plaintiffs' respective primary claims and conjunctive claims shall be dismissed without merit. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part of the defendant's appeal against the defendant exceeding the above amount ordered to be paid among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant shall be dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

[Attachment]

Judges Sung-nam et al. (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The Eunpyeong-gu Seoul is omitted in front of each residential location, and the time of the completion of residence is omitted from the time of conclusion of the consultation or the time of expropriation.

2) If a house is supplied under Article 41-2(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act as amended on February 29, 2008, the cost of establishing basic living facilities is calculated in the same way.

Note 3) = Land cost 3,835,630,315,962 + Development cost 492,356,786,482 + Relocation cost 32,323,092,482

4) Since there is no data that could identify the date of each disbursement of the cost of the cost of the basic living facilities, which serves as the basis of the calculation of the capital cost, the capital cost corresponding to the cost of the cost of the basic living facilities shall be calculated according to the ratio of the total capital cost to the cost of the site, the cost of creation, and the cost of the relocation measures to the cost of the basic living