The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”)

A. Regarding the first and second grounds for appeal, the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 8251, Jan. 19, 2007; hereinafter “former Intercity Transport Act”) provides that no charges for intercity transport facilities shall be imposed on the creation of housing sites and housing construction projects following the implementation of relocation measures. However, it is merely a provision that reduces the burden of the operator of the development project on the responsibility to pay the charges for the operator of the development project. In the event that the operator of the development project actually disbursed the charges for intercity transport facilities in the course of the creation of housing land and housing construction, the charges for intercity transport facilities actually disbursed shall not be deemed a provision that excludes the person subject to relocation measures from

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da203799 Decided September 12, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da107723 Decided February 13, 2014, etc.). Meanwhile, in cases where a project operator set the sales price of a re-resident’s housing site at a discounted amount from the cost of housing site development, whether the sale price exceeds “amount obtained by deducting the cost of installing basic living facilities from the cost of housing site development” and whether the cost of installing basic living facilities is included in the sale price and its scope should be determined through mutual relations.

Article 78 (4) 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 Land Compensation Act”) only prohibits a project operator from transferring the cost of basic facilities to a person subject to relocation measures.