In a case where a rental business operator directly constructs a public rental housing site developed pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the housing site cost reflected in the pre-sale conversion price of the publicly constructed rental housing site (i.e., the housing site supply price at which the discount rate set forth in the Housing Site Development Business Guidelines was applied to the development cost of the construction site for the publicly constructed rental housing) / In such a case, when calculating the housing price publicly announced by the rental business operator at the time of initial recruitment of occupants, based on the housing site cost at the estimated development cost, and such housing site cost is calculated as the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price (negative in principle), whether a rental business operator violates the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Rental Housing Act and subordinate statutes (negative)

Article 21(1) and (10) of the former Rental Housing Act (Amended by Act No. 11242, Jan. 26, 2012; see Article 50-3(1) and (10) of the current Special Act on Public Housing; Article 23(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23584, Feb. 2, 2012; Article 56(7) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Public Housing); Article 9(1) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 441, Feb. 3, 2012; see Article 40 [Attachment 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Public Housing; Article 14 [Attachment 7]; Article 18(2) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act; Article 23(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2530-1, Jul. 25, / [Attachment 1, 475(2) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act]

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da97079 Decided April 21, 201 (Gong2011Sang, 993) Supreme Court Decision 2014Da17206 Decided December 23, 2015 (Gong2016Sang, 205)

Attached List of Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (Attorney Kim Byung-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Sun-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2031341 decided June 15, 2017

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff’s successor.

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

1. In the event that a rental business operator directly constructs public rental housing units developed pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the housing site cost reflected in the pre-sale conversion price of the publicly constructed rental housing units is a housing site supply price subject to the discount rate set by the Housing Site Development Business Guidelines (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da97079, Apr. 21, 201). In such a case, barring special circumstances, such as in violation of the standards for housing site supply prices prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, etc., in the process of calculating the cost of housing site costs, the housing site cost, which was publicly announced by the rental business operator at the time of initial recruitment of occupants, was based on the housing site cost at the discount rate set at the estimated development cost, and such housing site cost as the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price, cannot be deemed to be in violation of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Rental Housing Act and subordinate statutes. In such case, the housing site cost should be calculated according to the housing site price standard for such use.

2. A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion of unjust enrichment on the following grounds.

The Korea National Housing Corporation (the Korea National Housing Corporation and the Korea Land Corporation were merged with the defendant on October 1, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) decided to construct and lease the apartment of this case, which is a public construction-lease apartment, on the housing site developed by itself, and obtained business approval on November 6, 2002. On September 30, 2005, the defendant announced the first recruitment of occupants on the apartment of this case, and completed the construction of the apartment of this case, and leased the apartment of this case to tenants including the plaintiffs for five years as publicly constructed rental housing. The defendant sold the apartment of this case to the plaintiffs with the pre-sale conversion price calculated by the defendant as the sale price.

The Defendant calculated and publicly announced the housing price based on the cost of housing site that applied the discount rate of 85% at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants, and calculated the pre-sale conversion price accordingly. The Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that the cost of housing site should be calculated based on the estimated development cost as of November 6, 2002, which is the date of approval of the housing construction project plan. However, there is a lack of materials to calculate the cost of housing site development at the above time, and the calculation of housing site cost based on the cost of presumption at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants is not illegal. The cost of housing site cost calculated by the Defendant can be deemed lawful, except where the ratio of the

As in the instant case, if the Defendant constructs rental housing on a housing site developed by itself, it should be deemed that the housing site was supplied at the time of obtaining approval for the housing construction project plan. As such, the housing site cost to be applied when calculating the pre-sale conversion price is the amount calculated by applying the discount rate of 95% set forth in the Housing Site Development Business Guidelines that was duly calculated and implemented at that time. Since the average of the construction cost and appraisal price of the entire apartment of the instant apartment exceeds the aggregate of the entire apartment of this case, the justifiable pre-sale conversion price is the maximum price. However, the pre-sale conversion price calculated and concluded by the Defendant does not exceed the pre-sale conversion price calculated pursuant to the aforementioned statutes. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the fact beyond the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the base point of time for calculating the

3. The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are without merit, and all of them are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs and Intervenors succeeding to the Plaintiff: omitted

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)