See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Jinjin, Attorneys Noh Sung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation (Law Firm Apex, Attorneys Park Gi-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 2, 2011

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gahap20951 Decided April 8, 2010

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. The defendant:

(1) 5% per annum from March 6, 2009 to March 30, 2011; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment to the rest of Plaintiffs 254 and 254; and

(2) The amount corresponding to the amount of unjust enrichment stated in the column for unjust enrichment in the separate sheet No. 1 attached to Plaintiffs 254 and 254 in the first instance trial, and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from September 18, 2009 to March 30, 2011, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

sub-payment.

B. All remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs bear 95% of the total costs of the lawsuit and 5% of the defendant respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff shall seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation in the separate sheet No. 3, and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the first instance trial after seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation in the separate sheet No. 3, and the change in the lawsuit was exchanged to claim restitution of unjust enrichment in the previous trial. As a result of the change in the plaintiffs' lawsuit above, the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment by the plaintiffs was extended to the modified part of the lawsuit).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiffs of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount calculated by deducting the amount stated in the column of unjust enrichment cited in the judgment of the court of first instance in the relevant statement No. 2 from the amount calculated by adding the amount of unjust enrichment stated in the relevant statement No. 3 to the amount of unjust enrichment, and 20% interest per annum from the day

The part against the plaintiffs in the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of obligation in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and it is confirmed that there is no obligation to pay the remaining amount after deducting the corresponding amount in the column for existence of obligation in the corresponding statement No. 2 of the corresponding statement No. 3 from the corresponding amount in the column for existence of obligation in the corresponding statement No. 2 of the corresponding statement No

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to April 8, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part are dismissed (the defendant filed an incidental appeal against the part of the confirmation of the existence of the obligation, but as seen above, since the plaintiffs changed the part of the claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation to the claim for unjust enrichment at the court of first instance, there is no incidental appeal against the part of the claim for confirmation of existence of the obligation to the defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2005, the Defendant purchased a public housing site of 46,742 square meters from the Korea Land Corporation to the supply site of 2 stories underground and 692 households with 20 stories above ground and ancillary welfare facilities (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On December 10, 2007, the Defendant obtained approval from the Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority to supply the instant apartment to the said public housing site. The instant apartment is an apartment house subject to the application of “sale price” under Article 38-2 of the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 8657, Oct. 17, 2007).

B. On April 15, 2008, the Sales Price Review Committee passed a resolution on the maximum sale price as KRW 61,706,010,00 for the apartment of this case, and approved the maximum sale price as KRW 102,730 for the housing site cost, KRW 356,00 for the basic-type construction cost, and other additional cost 29,787,283,000 for the aggregate, and KRW 194,223,649,00 for the apartment of this case (hereinafter “ maximum sale price”).

C. On April 25, 2008, the Defendant issued a public announcement of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of the apartment of this case (hereinafter “public announcement of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of this case”) to provide a certain amount to the total number of 692 households by dividing them by the types A, B, and C3 of the size of national housing as shown in Table 1.

The details of the sale price of the instant housing site are published by item. According to the following items: ① The purchase price of the housing site is KRW 5,436,020,00, KRW 4,568,228,00, the necessary expenses are KRW 1,597,952,00, KRW 103,800, and other expenses; ② the construction cost is KRW 61,706,010,000; ② the construction cost is KRW 13 public works; KRW 23 public works; KRW 970,970, KRW 70, KRW 9750, KRW 70, KRW 80, KRW 9750, KRW 70, KRW 50, KRW 9750, KRW 70, KRW 90, KRW 50, KRW 50, KRW 50, KRW 50, KRW 50, KRW 9750, KRW 70, KRW 50, KRW 9750, KRW

In the head of the Dong-type housing unit in the main sentence, the number of housing site units to be constructed by unit unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of unit of 112.926 A 84.7379 8.1887 4.926 4.5081 4.5081 157.4347 6.3291 132.6.6289 B 84.69 B 84.4963 84.1326 84.12. 157. 016. 1016. 284. 2968384. 1684. 1684. 29684, 2816

D. Meanwhile, with respect to the supply column for each type of housing posted by the Defendant in the notice of recruitment of occupants of this case, the following table-2 are 109,014,144, and the site cost for each type B (113.29 m29 m289 m2) are 111,630,081, and the site cost for each type of housing for each type of housing for each type of housing (111,630,000 m29 m29) are 76,783,386,048, and if all of the site cost for each unit of housing for each type of housing for each type of housing for each type of housing, the aggregate amount is 117,4381,63007

Table 12.927 A 157.436.329 1329,659,114 15,003,03,03,0403,048.629 B 157.15.629 B 157.016.140 280 280 109,014,144, 30,523,960,320, 3203.297 C 157.6.936.180 6.11,630,081,31, 256,42,680 in total,6927,783,683,6848484.

E. From May 2008 to June 2008, the Plaintiffs entered into each sales contract (hereinafter “each sales contract of this case”) with the Defendant as shown in the separate sheet No. 4 attached hereto. Each sales contract is divided into three items, namely, “site price,” “building price,” and “value-added tax,” and each amount is written.

12.92.927 A 13,659, 114, 143, 764, 149, 037, 169, 169, 167, 16964, 167, 1697, 2064, 2057, 2064, 2057, 2064, 2057, 2057, 3064, 2057, 2064, 2057, 205, 2064, 2064, 205, 3064, 205, 205, 3064, 167, 205, 3064, 205, 207, 3064, 205, 205, 2007, 1705, 2401, 194

F. A site area used as a site for the instant apartment among 46,742 square meters of a public site purchased by the Defendant is 45,89.6 square meters, and among the remainder, 197 square meters is a road site, and 645.3 square meters is a neighborhood living facility site.

Meanwhile, among the sale price in this case disclosed by the Defendant in the public announcement notice of this case, the housing site cost is KRW 61,706,010,000, and the housing site cost includes the housing site cost of KRW 645.3 square meters for neighborhood living facilities and KRW 197 square meters for road sites in addition to the apartment of this case.

G. The Plaintiffs paid 70% of the sales price to the Defendant as the down payment and intermediate payment of the instant apartment until the closing of the argument in the first instance trial, but paid the remainder of the sales price to the lower court, thereby paying the amount corresponding to the total supply price in the attached Form 4.

(h) The content of the laws and regulations governing the sales price ceiling system applicable to multi-family housing supplied in the public site is as follows:

[The Housing Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same)]

(1) The apartment housing supplied by a project undertaker to the general public pursuant to the provisions of Article 38 shall be supplied below the selling price calculated in accordance with the standards prescribed in this Article (hereinafter referred to as "house subject to the upper limit system for selling prices of housing"; hereinafter the same shall apply). In this case, the selling price shall be composed of housing site costs and construction costs, and detailed details, calculation method, appraisal institution selection method, etc. shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry

(2) The cost of a housing site where housing is supplied in a public housing site out of the items of sale price referred to in paragraph (1) shall be an amount calculated by adding the cost related to the housing site as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation to the supply price of the relevant housing site, and the cost of a housing site where housing is supplied in a housing site other than a public housing site shall be an amount calculated by adding the

(3) Among the items of sale price under paragraph (1), construction costs shall be the amount calculated by adding them to the construction costs determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "basic type construction costs"). In such cases, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may separately determine and publicly notify the basic type construction costs within the scope prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation,

(4) Where a project undertaker has obtained approval for the recruitment of occupants for the houses subject to the upper limit system for selling prices, which are supplied in the public housing site, he/she shall publicly announce the sale prices in the following subparagraphs (including the subdivision as prescribed by the Ordinance of

1. The housing site cost; 2. The construction cost; 3. Indirect cost; and

(6) In making a public announcement pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (4) and (5), the public announcement of the housing site cost and construction cost as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation shall include the details of and the basis for calculation of the parcelling-out price examination committee under the provisions of Article 38-4,

Article 38-4 (Operation, etc. of Sales Price Examination Committee) (1) The head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall establish and operate a Sales Price Examination Committee to deliberate on matters concerning the provisions of Article 38-2.

(2) In granting approval for the invitation of occupants pursuant to Article 38 (1) 1, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall determine whether to grant approval according to the results of the examination by the Sales Price Examination Committee.

(3) The Sales Price Examination Committee shall be comprised of not more than ten relevant experts, such as professors in housing-related fields, persons engaged in housing construction-related fields, relevant public officials, or attorneys-at-law, accountants, appraisers, etc., and matters concerning procedures for and operation of the

(4) In conducting the business affairs under paragraphs (1) through (3), the members of the Parcelling-Out Price Examination Committee shall conduct the examination fairly in good faith and sincerity.

【Rules on the Calculation, etc. of Sale Price of Multi-Family Housing (amended by Ministerial Ordinance No. 4 of March 14, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply)】

The purpose of this Rule is to prescribe matters concerning the selective item system following housing supply, calculation method of selling prices of housing subject to the upper limit system, methods and procedures for the public announcement of selling prices, etc. pursuant to Articles 38 (1) 3 and 38-2 of the Housing Act.

Article 2 (Scope of Application) This Rule shall apply to multi-family housing supplied to the general public by a project proprietor [including a project owner who constructs and supplies facilities other than housing and housing in the same building with a building permit granted under Article 8 of the Building Act in excess of the number of houses under Article 16 (1) of the Housing Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"); hereinafter the same shall apply] pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Act (where the project proprietor is the State, a local government, the Korea National Housing Corporation under the Korea National Housing Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea National Housing Corporation"), or a local public corporation established for housing construction business pursuant to Article 49 of the Local Public Enterprises Act (hereinafter referred to as "local public corporation"), referring to the announcement

Article 7 (Methods, etc. for Calculating Sale Price of Housing subject to the Price Ceiling System under Article 38-2 (1) of the Act shall be as follows:

Sales price = Basic construction cost + additional construction cost + housing site cost

(2) Basic type building costs shall be classified into ground floor building costs and underground floor building costs.

(3) The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall publicly announce the index of construction cost of collective housing (referring to the index calculated taking into account price fluctuation of construction materials, etc. put into the housing construction, which indicates the fluctuation of housing construction cost) and the basic type construction cost reflecting it every six months.

Article 8 (Expenses to be Added to Supply Prices of Public Housing Sites) Expenses for housing sites to be added to the supply prices of public housing sites pursuant to Article 38-2 (2) of the Act shall be as follows:

(1) The basic type building cost in calculating the building cost pursuant to Article 38-2 (3) of the Act means the basic type building cost publicly notified at the time nearest to the date of application for approval for invitation of occupants (where a project proprietor is the State, a local government, the Korea National Housing Corporation, or a local public corporation, referring to the date of announcement of invitation of occupants).

(2) "Amount added under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation" in the former part of Article 38-2 (3) of the Act means the amount calculated according to the items, contents and calculation method under attached Table 1 as expenses added to basic construction costs

(3) Pursuant to the latter part of Article 38-2 (3) of the Act, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may separately determine and publicly announce basic type construction expenses within the scope of between 95/100 and 105/100 of the basic type construction expenses in consideration of the characteristics of the relevant

(4) Where the head of a Si/Gun/Gu intends to separately determine and publicly announce basic construction costs pursuant to the latter part of Article 38-2 (3) of the Act, he/she shall undergo deliberation by the Sales Price Examination Committee. In such cases, he/she shall submit objective data on the difference, etc. between the standard unit price by major material

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1)

(1) Calculation, etc. of the sales price and each sales price of the instant case

Although the apartment house of this case is subject to the maximum sale price system, the defendant concluded each sales contract of this case with the plaintiffs by calculating excessively the sale price in violation of the maximum sale price system or setting the sale price in excess of the sale price of this case for the following reasons. The part of the sale price calculated in excess of the reasonable sale price of this case is invalid as it is in violation of compulsory provisions, or is subject to cancellation due to the defendant's deception or the plaintiffs' expression of intent by mistake. Therefore, the defendant is liable to return the sale price received in excess

(A) Among the sale price of this case notified by the Defendant, the housing site cost includes not only the apartment of this case but also the housing site cost for neighborhood living facilities and roads. This is not the housing site cost for the use of the apartment of this case, and thus, it should be deducted from the sale price of this case. Thus, the amount equivalent to the ratio of the cost of neighborhood living facilities and roads

(B) Of the upper limit of the sale price approved by the sale price examination committee, the total amount of the site cost in the column of the supply price for each type on the written notice of invitation of invitation of recruitment of this case is calculated as KRW 76,783,386,048, and it is improper to calculate the sale price as KRW 15,077,376,048 or higher than the amount determined as the housing site cost in the upper limit of the sale price of this case. Thus, the above excess amount should also be deducted from each sale price of this case.

(C) Although the instant apartment should be exempted from value-added tax pursuant to Article 106(1)4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act with housing falling under the national housing scale, the Defendant concluded each of the instant sales contracts with the Plaintiffs, and imposed value-added tax as in the said Table 3>, as the said Table 3>, it should also be deducted from the sales price.

(2) Whether the sale price of the instant case is appropriate for the upper limit

The maximum amount of the sale price of this case was calculated excessively in terms of the basic building cost and the additional cost of construction costs as follows. Since the amount equivalent to the difference between the upper limit amount reasonably calculated and the upper limit of the sale price of this case should be deducted from the sale price of this case, the defendant is liable to return the amount equivalent to the above difference out of the sale price paid by the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

(A) Calculation of excessive basic type construction costs

(1) Construction expenses concerning neighborhood living facilities shall be included therein.

Since the part concerning neighborhood living facilities is included in the facility item of the application for approval for the instant apartment project, and the details of construction cost of the Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. constructed by supply and demand of the instant apartment construction from the Defendant also includes the part concerning neighborhood living facilities, among the upper limit of sale price, the basic type construction cost includes the construction cost for the neighborhood living facilities, not the instant apartment, and

(2) The application of Article 2008-888 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.

Since the defendant applied for the approval of the housing construction project plan of this case to the Incheon Metropolitan City Free Economic Zone Authority on October 30, 2007, the sale price examination committee shall be established until November 19, 2007 pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and the sale price examination committee entered into a contract for new apartment construction with Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. on December 10, 2007. Thus, in calculating the upper limit of sale price, in calculating the upper limit of sale price, the basic type construction cost shall be applied pursuant to Article 2007-313 of the former Public Notice of Construction and Transportation (amended by August 6, 2007). The upper limit of sale price is calculated based on the provisions of Article 208-8888 of the Public Notice of Construction and Transportation (amended by February 28, 2008. Therefore, the part shall be deducted.

(3) Calculation of the design expenses and supervision expenses in excess.

According to the provisions of Article 208-88 of the former Public Notice of Construction and Transportation, design expenses and supervision expenses are included only in the construction expenses on the ground floor, and the construction expenses on the underground floor does not include design expenses and supervision expenses. The design expenses are 22,000 won per square meter and supervision expenses are 23,000 won per square meter, so design expenses are total of 1,719,641,220 won [total amount of 78,165.51 square meter (total floor on the ground) x 22,00 won]. The supervision expenses are total of 1,797,806,730 won [total area on the ground floor x 78,165.51 square meter (total area on the ground floor) x 23,000 won] in the public notice column of the public notice of the public notice of this case, the amount corresponding to the difference between design expenses and supervision expenses should be calculated as 2,2400,000 won.

(B) Unreasonable calculation of additional construction costs

(1) Expenses for recognition of housing performance rating;

Although the Defendant did not submit a letter of recognition to the Sales Price Review Committee in order to recognize the cost of housing performance rating as the additional cost of basic type construction, even if it submitted a letter of recognition, the agenda for deliberation submitted to the Sales Price Review Committee was calculated as KRW 3,442,380,000 based on the basic type construction cost of public notice No. 2008-888. This is determined as the additional cost of KRW 3,370,496,760 based on public notice No. 207-313, which is equivalent to the difference, and thus, it was excessively calculated as KRW 71,83,240.

(2) Metropolitan transport facility charges and district heating charges;

Since the defendant imposed charges for metropolitan transportation facilities and local heating charges without legal basis on additional costs, 1,983,974,000 won shall be deducted.

(3) Landscape expenses.

In order to recognize landscape costs as additional costs, 6,679,252,00 won for landscape costs should be deducted because there is no such condition that the approval person of the apartment project plan in this case should add the conditions when he approves the project.

(4) Costs for legal excess welfare facilities.

According to the application for approval for the business of the apartment of this case, among the apartment welfare facilities of this case, children's playgrounds 239.23 square meters, 157.87 square meters in the residential sports facilities, 83.87 square meters in the residential room, 136.85 square meters in the childcare center, 61.7692 square meters in the residential center, and 3897.4215 square meters in the residential public facilities, among the apartment of this case. children's playgrounds do not require additional construction costs, and there is no need to install certain support facilities in the underground in order to build the apartment floor, which is installed in the underground floor, and the above welfare facilities are recognized as additional expenses for the residential sports facilities and the residential welfare facilities (total area of 294.72 square meters in the underground floor). Since this is constructed in the underground floor, the difference between the construction cost of the underground floor and the construction cost of 63,000 square meters in the underground floor and the amount should be recognized as additional expenses.

(5) Expenses incurred in remote inspection, home network, and high-speed special rating.

Although remote inspection facilities fall under some functions of the home network, they were separated and calculated as additional expenses, and the additional charges were calculated excessively.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the sales price of this case and each sales price are calculated excessively

(A) Whether the housing site cost deduction for neighborhood living facilities and road sites is possible

① There is no dispute between the parties concerned regarding the fact that the upper limit of the selling price approved by the Parcelling-Out Price Review Committee and the housing site cost of the present selling price of this case, which is 61,706,010,000,000 won as determined by the Defendant, includes the housing site cost of 645.3 square meters of the land for neighborhood living facilities. However, it is not included in the apartment of this case, which is a multi-family housing, as it is supplied to those who intend to use the apartment separately according to the purpose of the apartment sale procedure, and it is not included in the apartment of this case. Article 38-2(1) of the Housing Act explicitly states that the selling price of the apartment to which the upper limit of selling price is applied consists of “the housing site cost and the construction cost,” and thus, it shall not be included in the sale price of this case (the Defendant also recognizes that the housing site cost corresponding to

Therefore, in violation of the above Housing Act, which is a mandatory provision between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no validity of the sales contract as to the part of the site for neighborhood living facilities added to the site cost, and the defendant received the sales price including it. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs.

Furthermore, in calculating the amount to be returned, the housing site cost is KRW 61,706,00 in the sale price of this case, and the housing site cost per unit area is KRW 1,320,140 in the total area of the apartment of this case including the residential site and the road site (=61,706,010,000 in ± 46,742 in ±). As seen earlier, the cost equivalent to the housing site of this case should be deducted from the sale price of this case. As such, the housing site cost should be calculated as the cost corresponding to the housing site of this case, excluding the 645.3 square meters in 645.3 square meters in - 46.742 square meters in - 645.3 square meters in - 645.3 square meters in - 645.3 square meters in - 60,854,097,538 won in each unit area (=1,320,140 x46.7 square meters in this case).

Nevertheless, since the Defendant calculated 61,706,010,00 won as the housing site cost of the selling price of this case, 851,912,462 won (i.e., 61,706,010,000 won - 60,854,097,538 won) should be deducted. If the amount of shares in the housing site of each household (A: 66.3291/45,8996, B: 66.140/45,89.6, C: 66.140/40,89.6, 66.5: 6.5180/45,89.6), the amount of shares in the housing site to be returned to each household shall be KRW 1,231,091 won, B type 1,227,581, and C type 1,254,57,97.6)

The amount to be returned (851,912,462 won x 45,89.6) A 66.3291 x 1328,75.412 1,231,231,091 Won B 66.1400 286.18,519.200 1,227,581 C6.5180 280 286.5180 280,625.01,234,597 smallest 45,899.6

② In the case of a road site of 197 square meters, occupants of neighborhood living facilities also use the road. However, most of them are used by the occupants of the apartment complex of this case, and the area is extremely minor compared to the area of the apartment site of this case, and the defendant, as the project undertaker, must construct the road for the supply of apartment buildings and bear the expenses, so it is difficult to view that the sale price of the housing site for the road site was included in the calculation of the upper limit.

③ Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is justified only for the part of the neighboring living site.

(B) Whether the sale price ceiling system violates the sale price ceiling system

According to the facts acknowledged above, among the upper limit of the sale price approved by the sale price review committee, the total amount of housing site cost for each household in the column of supply for each type of housing posted on the notice of the public announcement of this case is 76,783,386,048 won as stated in the above Table 2

The maximum price system is a system that aims to promote stability in the living of the people by supplying housing at a stable price. The Housing Act and the delegated statutes stipulate detailed criteria for calculating the maximum price by reasonably calculating the expenses incurred in the construction of multi-family housing, thereby preventing a project operator from calculating the sale price in an abnormal manner by setting arbitrary standards. Thus, the maximum price should be calculated according to the legal standards. However, if a project operator actually determines the sale price within the scope of the maximum amount calculated accordingly, if the project operator makes a contract for sale with several buyers, it is sufficient to determine the sale price by setting the individual sale price within the scope of the total amount, and if the project operator actually makes a contract for sale with several buyers, it cannot be deemed that the daily basis should be followed by the items of the sale price determined by the upper limit system. As seen above, since the total sale price of the apartment of this case is determined by comparing the items within the scope of the upper limit amount, it cannot be deemed that there is a difference in the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no error in the contract between the project operator and the above items.

(C) Whether the defendant bears value-added tax on the plaintiffs

The details of the sales price in each of the instant sales contracts include value-added tax separately from the site price and building price. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant unfairly charged the Plaintiffs the exempted value-added tax including the sales price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 4 through 9, the sales price in each of the instant sales contracts only divided the total sales price into “site price”, “building price”, and “value-added tax.”

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

(2) Determination as to whether the sale price of this case is appropriate for the upper limit

(A) Appropriateness of the calculation of the basic type of construction cost

(1) Whether construction costs for neighborhood living facilities are included therein.

According to the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 12-9, the part concerning the application for the approval of the apartment project in this case is included in the part concerning neighborhood living facilities. The details of the construction cost of Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., which supplied and supplied the new apartment construction in this case, also includes the construction cost of neighborhood living facilities. However, according to the evidence No. 3, the deliberation of the Parcelling-Out Price Review Committee which decided the upper price of the apartment building in this case, the area of the ground floor construction cost is 78,165.51 square meters in the calculation of the upper price of the basic type construction cost, and the basic construction cost is calculated by applying the announced price to the apartment in this case. Since the above area is not included in the upper price of the apartment building in this case, the upper price of the apartment except the neighborhood living facilities in this case (11,283.7606 square meters on each ground, 104.560 square meters on each ground) can not be seen as being included in the upper price of the construction cost of the above.

(2) Whether Article 2008-888 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation is applied.

According to the above facts, Article 2 of the Rules on the Calculation, etc. of Sale Price of Multi-family housing provides that in the case of a local government-invested public corporation like the defendant, the time when the announcement of invitation of occupants was made shall be the time when the approval for the recruitment of occupants was obtained. According to Article 14 of the Rules, with respect to a local government-invested public corporation like the defendant, the construction cost in calculating the construction cost refers to the basic type construction cost publicly notified at the most close time on the date of the announcement of invitation of occupants, and the Addenda of Article 208-888 (Evidence No. 9-1) of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation provides that "this public notice shall enter into force on February 1, 2008, and after the enforcement date, it shall apply from the portion of the application for approval for the recruitment of occupants, since the defendant made the announcement of invitation of occupants on April 25, 2008, it shall be applied to the apartment construction cost of this case. Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiffs's assertion.

(3) Whether the design cost and supervision cost are excessively calculated.

According to the record of Gap evidence No. 2, the fact that the sale price of this case in the notice of this case is KRW 2,240,00,000, and KRW 3,100,000,000, which are the design cost, can be acknowledged. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the basic type of construction cost for the maximum sale price is KRW 102,730,356,000, and the design cost is KRW 240,000,000,000, which is the design cost for the notice of this case's notice of this case's publication of sale price is included in indirect cost, and the construction cost is included in KRW 84,850,79,79,000, which is the construction cost, and KRW 17,879,57,000,000, which is the indirect cost, and thus, the defendant cannot be viewed to have claimed that the upper limit of sale price was identical to the above construction cost.

(B) Appropriateness in calculating the additional cost of construction costs

(1) Expenses for recognition of housing performance rating;

According to the evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, and 2, the defendant obtained a certificate of housing performance rating from the Korea Institute of Construction and Transportation on Dec. 10, 2007 and submitted it to the Sales Price Examination Committee. It can be recognized that the sale price notice of this case contains the contents of housing performance rating in the public notice column. As seen earlier, it is legitimate to calculate the basic construction cost based on the public notice No. 2008-88 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s notice. Thus, the plaintiff’s above assertion

(2) Metropolitan transport facility charges and district heating charges;

Article 11 of the Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas provides that "any person who carries out a housing construction project under the Housing Act in a metropolitan area prescribed by Presidential Decree among metropolitan areas shall pay charges for metropolitan transport facilities for the construction and improvement of metropolitan transport facilities, etc." Article 18 (1) of the Integrated Energy Act provides that "any person who carries out a housing construction project in a metropolitan area prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be entitled to bear all or part of the construction costs for supply facilities" and Article 18 (1) of the Integrated Energy Act provides that "the head of the Incheon Metropolitan City free economic zone authority may require any person to bear all or part of the construction costs for supply facilities." According to subparagraph 2 of the same Article, the conditions of the project plan that the apartment construction project in this case is subject to charges for metropolitan transport facilities pursuant to Article 11 of the Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas, and the regional air and heating charges are to be used

(3) Landscape expenses.

According to Eul's evidence 2, it can be recognized that the conditions for the approval of the project plan of the Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority include consultation (i.e., a plan for self-regulation on the night passage of the rooftop floor, apartment color plan, construction plan, etc.) prior to the relevant process in accordance with the formulation of the plan for the approval of the project plan of the Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority in relation to the landscape taxation plan, and that the conditions for the approval of the relevant authorization and permission are to be observed and related laws are to be observed. Since the approval of the apartment project of this case added the conditions for the landscape cost, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit

(4) Costs for legal excess welfare facilities.

According to Gap evidence No. 5, in the educational materials related to the improvement of the sale price system issued by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, welfare facilities falling under the statutory minimum standard area shall not be acknowledged as the construction cost of underground floors even if they were installed under the ground, and in the case where welfare facilities exceeding the minimum standard area are installed under the underground, the construction cost is stipulated as the additional construction cost. The above welfare facilities are not the support facilities established under the underground, but those established for the purpose of welfare facilities. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

(5) Expenses incurred in remote inspection, home network, and high-speed special rating.

According to Gap evidence No. 3, the agenda for deliberation by the sales price examination committee is 158,548,00 won for remote inspection facilities costs, home network 3,138,367,000 won for tele-inspection facilities costs, and super-high speed communications special class 1,320,705,000 won for super-high speed, but the remote inspection is a system that enables the remote inspection personnel to read the confirmatory data by using remote devices without visiting daily customers without visiting daily customers. The home network is a system that connects both household products within the house with each other, and the remote inspection and home network is separate from the two systems through the wired line network through the Internet, so there is no reason to deem that the remote inspection and home network is part of the cost of the remote inspection network, and there is no reason to support the above plaintiffs' assertion that the remote inspection system is excessive.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the purchase price of the apartment of this case shall be deducted from KRW 1,231,091 in case of Category A, KRW 1,227,581 in case of Category B, and KRW 1,234,597 in case of Category C, and KRW 1,254,597 in case of Category C. Thus, the defendant's claim for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to March 6, 2009 to the plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs 254, and KRW 1,254 in case of Category C, and the amount corresponding to each of the unlawful profits stated in the attached Form No. 1 in case of Category B, and it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the execution obligation of this case from March 30, 201 to March 30, and the defendant's claim for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Han-ju (Presiding Judge)

(1) The plaintiffs claim based on the following 2. A. (1) is the primary claim, and claim for the payment of the same amount as the claim in the claim by the preliminary claim based on the following 2. A. (2). However, the above cause of claim is only an attack method to claim the plaintiffs' claim for the return of unjust enrichment, which is sought by the plaintiffs, and it does not vary in the subject matter of lawsuit. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim and the preliminary claim are not considered a separate subject matter of lawsuit.

2) In principle, where part of a juristic act is null and void because it is in violation of the validity regulation, which is a mandatory law, the whole contract shall be null and void. However, according to the evidence and the whole purport of the pleading above, the plaintiffs are deemed to have concluded a sales contract based on the sales price set by excluding the expenses corresponding to the land for the neighborhood living facilities with the defendant, so the part corresponding to the land for the neighborhood living facilities shall be null and void in accordance with the legal principles of partial invalidation of juristic act.