Attached Table 1 is as shown in the List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Lee Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 15 others (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Lee Jae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government et al.

September 22, 2017

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap50814 Decided June 24, 2016

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant against the plaintiff 7 and 74 is revoked, and all of the claims against the plaintiff 7 and 74 pertaining to the revoked part are dismissed.

2. The remaining appeals by Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government and all appeals by the remaining Defendants except Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government are dismissed.

3. The total cost of litigation between Plaintiffs 7, 74 and Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be borne by Plaintiffs 7 and 74, and the remaining costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Jongno-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Defendant Guro-gu shall be borne by the said Defendants.

4. The Plaintiff’s “Nonindicted 1” indicated in the Plaintiff’s column was changed to “Plaintiff 5” according to the process of litigation in this court.

1. Purport of claim

primaryly:

The "project operator" of the details of the claim amount in the attached Table 2 shall pay each of the pertinent plaintiffs as stated in the "Plaintiff" column of the same Table, 5% per annum from the date of entry of the "payment date" column of the same Table to the date of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of claim as stated in the attached Table 2 to May 13, 2016, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

Preliminary,

Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall pay each Plaintiff as indicated in the “Plaintiff” column for the description of the claim amount in attached Table 2 to each Plaintiff, 5% per annum from the date of entry to the date of delivery of a copy of the claim claim and the application form for modification of the cause of claim as of May 13, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants other than the defendant Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: (a) by adding "(excluding, however, the part 17-7 in the attached Table 5 stating "Plaintiff Number column" and the part 74 in the Plaintiff No. 313 stating "Plaintiff Number column" and the part 74 in the attached Table No. 5 stating "Plaintiff Number column")" to "the provision was made for each public interest project of this case" in Part No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) by adding judgment on the Defendants' assertion in the trial under Paragraph 2 below, it is identical to the corresponding part in the judgment of

2. Note 1) The Defendants’ assertion and determination as to the assertion

A. The defendants' assertion

1) Defendant Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government: The principal safety defense against Nonparty 1 of the first instance court

As Nonparty 1 died on May 20, 2013, before the instant lawsuit was filed, Nonparty 1’s portion of the instant lawsuit against the said Plaintiff is unlawful.

2) The defendants: The defendants' assertion that the land area for free acquisition is excluded in calculating the land cost.

Of roads, which are basic living facilities, the part acquired free of charge by the State or a local government from the State or the local government shall not be deemed to have been transferred to the person subject to the relocation measures because the site cost is not spent, and since it does not differ from the roads preserved before and after the public works, the part acquired without compensation should be excluded in calculating the road site cost.

3) The Defendants: The Defendants’ assertion as to statutory interest calculation period

In the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, even a bona fide beneficiary is considered to be a malicious beneficiary from the time when a copy of the complaint was served when the claim was lost (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1891, Feb. 13, 2014). The Plaintiffs requested only KRW 500,000 against the Defendants at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, but extended the amount of the claim through the application for amendment of the purport of the claim made on May 13, 2016, and thus, the copy of the complaint was served on KRW 50,000 (see August 21, 2014 or August 22, 2014). As regards the amount in excess, the legal interest shall be paid from the time when the copy of the application for amendment of the above purport of the claim was served on

4) Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City: The assertion as to whether Plaintiffs 7 and 74 are subject to relocation measures

Plaintiff 7 and Plaintiff 74 offered all of their own △△△ apartment to the implementation of the ○○ Green Park Creation Project. The Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not purchase the above △△△ apartment for the purpose of creating a park from the beginning, but rather applied for the relocation measures and purchased and removed it to create a park. As such, the ○○○ Green Park Creation Project does not constitute “public works” as provided in 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”). Accordingly, Plaintiff 7 and Plaintiff 74 on the premise that they are liable for the installation of basic living facilities by the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City should be dismissed.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the main defense against Nonparty 1 of the first instance trial

Even if a party dies, the attorney’s power of attorney is not extinguished (Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act). If a party has filed a lawsuit by expressing the party as the Plaintiff after delegating the litigation to the attorney, and the party was aware that he/she died before the lawsuit was instituted, the institution of a lawsuit is lawful and the effect of a lawsuit, such as interruption of prescription, is reverted to the inheritor. In such cases, the inheritor of the deceased person, who was subject to by analogy application of Article 233(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, ought to take over the litigation procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da21049, Apr. 2, 201

In full view of the purport of the argument in evidence No. 17, Nonparty 1 delegated all the administrative affairs pertaining to the lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of creating basic living facilities to the plaintiffs' legal representative on June 11, 2011; Nonparty 1 died on May 20, 2013; Nonparty 1’s legal representative who was unaware of the death of Nonparty 1 filed the lawsuit in this case under the name of Nonparty 1 on July 16, 2014; Nonparty 1’s heir as the wife, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, the wife, and Nonparty 5, Nonparty 1’s legal representative on January 16, 2017, filed the lawsuit of this case with Nonparty 1’s legal representative on the part of Nonparty 1’s legal representative on the part of Nonparty 5’s heir’s legal representative on the part of Nonparty 1’s legal representative on the part of Nonparty 1’s non-party 1’s acceptance of the lawsuit in this case’s name.

2) Determination as to the assertion of exclusion from the land area for free acquisition

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 7-2 of the evidence No. 7-2, the fact that E.S. acquired land of 45,621m2 which was an existing road among the land in the instant project zone is recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged in the facts acknowledged in the judgment of the first instance cited by this court by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the area of the road reverted to the free will also be included in the calculation of the basic site for living facilities. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit

(1) The calculation method of the cost of sites for basic living facilities x the total cost of site x the area of basic living facilities / the total project area is practically impossible to calculate the specific site cost based on the individual land price prior to the instant project, as the existing facilities, buildings, etc. installed within the instant project zone are removed and new facilities and buildings are installed through the instant project.

② Even if E.S.A. acquired land of 45,621 square meters of the existing road in the instant project district, the Defendants removed a road of 45,621 square meters and constructed a new road of 5,185 square meters (including a river area of 5,344 square meters among this), which was installed in accordance with the instant project plan. Therefore, the part of a road of 45,621 square meters which is acquired without compensation by E.S. in the instant project district is lost individual characteristics, and is included in the instant project district as a whole. Therefore, the said part of land acquired without compensation cannot be deemed to have been excluded from the calculation of the cost of the basic living facilities site solely on the ground that the land of 45,621 square meters of the existing road in the instant project district was acquired without compensation.

③ E. In calculating the cost of housing site development, E.S. did not exclude the land reverted without compensation, including road 45,621 square meters, from the area subject to calculation of the total cost of housing site development. E.S. reflected the total cost of housing site for the entire site area in the instant project district without considering the difference in the cost of acquisition of individual land. Based on the development cost, E.S. determined the sale price of the instant apartment and received the sale price in accordance with each of the instant sales contracts.

3) Determination on the assertion of statutory interest calculation time

According to Article 749 of the Civil Code, when the beneficiary has become aware that there is no legal ground after receiving the benefit, he shall be liable to return the benefit as the malicious beneficiary from that time, and when the bona fide beneficiary has lost, he shall be considered as the beneficiary from that time of filing the lawsuit. Since the beneficiary's bad faith is not related to the specific amount of unjust enrichment, but to the fact of unjust enrichment itself, if the beneficiary's bad faith is recognized as one of the facts of unjust enrichment due to the loss, the beneficiary shall be held liable

In the lawsuit of this case, the defendants filed the lawsuit of this case, "The plaintiffs bear the amount equivalent to the cost of creating infrastructure facilities to the plaintiffs who are subject to relocation measures, thereby recognizing that there was no legal ground for the profits gained by the defendants. Therefore, even if the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case and claimed only refund of some of the cost of creating infrastructure facilities borne by the plaintiffs against the defendants at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case, the defendants should be deemed to be the beneficiary in bad faith of all the cost of creating infrastructure facilities that the plaintiffs shared to

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

4) Determination as to whether Plaintiffs 7 and 74 are subject to relocation measures

In full view of each provision of the former Land Compensation Act, in order to be a person subject to relocation measures under the former Land Compensation Act, it is necessary to provide residential buildings due to the implementation of public works falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 4 of the former Land Compensation Act.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 12-1 and 2, Plaintiff 7 and Plaintiff 74, each of whom they owned, offered “△△△△ apartment (Seoul Seodaemun-gu omitted)” to “△△△△ apartment (Seoul Seo-gu omitted)”, and “△△△ apartment” was a old apartment constructed in 1971 and requested residents to purchase and remove △△△ apartment in the same way as the citizen apartment rearrangement project due to safety problems, etc., and they were purchased and removed by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and constructed a park on the spot. According to these facts, according to the facts of recognition, not the purchase of △△ apartment for the purpose of creating a park from the beginning by the residents, but the purchase of the △△ apartment by the residents who applied for relocation measures due to lack of the safety of △△ apartment, which cannot be a public project provided for in each subparagraph of Article 4 of the former Land Compensation Act.

Therefore, insofar as the ○○○ Neighborhood Park development project implemented by Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is not a public project under the former Land Compensation Act, Plaintiffs 7 and 74 do not constitute a person subject to the relocation measures to whom the project implementer bears the basic cost of living facilities pursuant to Article 78(4) of the former Land Compensation Act. Thus, the instant claim based on the premise that Plaintiff 7 and Plaintiff 74 are eligible for the relocation measures under the former Land Compensation Act is without merit and this part of the claim by Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case against the defendant 7 and 74 of this case shall be dismissed without any justifiable reasons. Since the defendants against the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 7 and 74 (hereinafter "Bail plaintiffs"), the defendants are stated in the "amount of money" in the "amount of unjust enrichment calculation table" attached to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by each court, and against this, the defendant Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "Seoul Metropolitan Government" is omitted in referring to each autonomous Gu of Seoul Metropolitan Government), Geumcheon-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Dongjak-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Seodaemun-gu, and Eunpyeong-gu, and Eunpyeong-gu, which are the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff 7 and the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff 4 of this case shall be dismissed by the court of first instance as of August 21, 2014, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the remaining part of the judgment of the judgment against the plaintiff 1 to this case shall be dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The Defendants, other than Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who did not appeal, are named. The same shall apply hereinafter.