[Attachment 1] The entry of the Plaintiff’s List is as follows (Attorney Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Attorneys Ansan-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 22, 2014

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Gahap12985 Decided November 30, 2010

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na6801 Decided August 17, 2012

Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84233 Decided January 23, 2014

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the preliminary claim added by the first instance court prior to the remand and the claims expanded by the first instance court after the remand, shall be modified as follows:

All of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant (including plaintiff's successor to lawsuit) are dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the plaintiffs (including the plaintiff's successor to the lawsuit).

1. Purport of the claim and appeal by the plaintiffs and the plaintiff successor intervenor

(1) The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. (1) The defendant shall pay the corresponding amount as stated in the "amount of unjust enrichment" of the primary claim among the claim list (attached Form 2) to the plaintiffs and the plaintiff's successor (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs"), and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from May 1, 2009 to the day of the final judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. (2) The defendant shall pay the plaintiffs (attached Form 2) the corresponding amount as stated in the "amount of unjust enrichment" of the primary claim in the claim list (attached Form 2) and the corresponding amount as stated in the "amount of unjust enrichment" of the preliminary claim from May 1 to the day of final judgment, and from the next day to the day of full payment, the amount calculated at the respective ratio of 20% per annum per annum from the next day to the day of final judgment. (The plaintiff shall reduce the amount of the conjunctive claim before the remand, while the plaintiff shall additionally claim for damages for unjust enrichment from 20.)

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the claims against the plaintiffs and the plaintiff's successor are dismissed.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

The plaintiffs and plaintiffs 3, 24, and 43 of the first instance court prior to remand filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the defendant, and the first instance court rendered a judgment citing part of the claim. The first instance court prior to remand dismissed all the claims against plaintiffs 3, 24, and 43 of the first instance court prior to remand, including the additional preliminary claims, and changed the judgment citing a lower amount than the cited amount in the first instance court. Both appeals were filed by both parties against the judgment of the first instance court prior to remand. The appeal by both parties was partially accepted by the defendant's appeal, and the part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance court prior to remand was entirely reversed and remanded to this court. The appeals by plaintiffs 3, 24, 43, and the plaintiffs are all dismissed.

Accordingly, the part of the claim of Plaintiffs 3, 24, and 43 before remanding is separated by the above judgment of the Supreme Court and finally confirmed. The scope of the judgment of the party after remanding is limited to the part of the claim of the plaintiffs.

2. Conclusion process, etc. of the instant sales contract;

A. Summary of the instant project

On December 26, 2001, approximately KRW 9,307,148 square meters of land located in Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-si was designated and publicly announced as a planned area for housing site development on December 26, 2001.Korea National Housing Corporation, Korea Land Corporation, Sungnam-si, and Gyeonggi-do became a joint project executor of the housing site development project of Sungnam-si, the project district subject to the said planned area for housing site development (hereinafter “instant project”). After approval of the housing site development plan on December 30, 2003 and approval of the housing site development implementation plan on December 30, 204, the housing site development plan was approved on May 18, 2005 based on the size and estimated development cost of the housing site subject to the project finalized on May 23, 2005 on several occasions, but the said housing site development plan was modified on several occasions, but its project was maintained as a replacement.

On the other hand, the Korea National Housing Corporation was merged with the Korea Land Corporation on October 1, 2009 (hereinafter “Defendant”) and became the defendant (hereinafter “Defendant” even in case of the name of the Korea Land Corporation or the Korea National Housing Corporation from the next date).

B. The defendant's relocation of housing site supply process

The operators of the instant project, including the Korea National Housing Corporation, decided to specially supply the instant project district to those who were expropriated in the instant project and who lost their base of livelihood, as part of the relocation measures against those who were deprived of their base of livelihood. On October 2003, the instant project announced the relocation measures that contain the aforementioned contents against those subject to relocation measures.

The Korea National Housing Corporation, etc. shall supply one parcel of 230 square meters to the original person subject to relocation measures at a level below 80% of the development cost (based on the amount calculated by deducting the installation cost of basic living facilities from the development cost), but publicly notified that the portion exceeding the above area inevitably exceeds the above area due to the conditions for the allocation of shares should be supplied as appraisal price. On November 2006, the supply price of the housing site of migrants is reduced until 265 square meters, and the portion in excess is approved by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as to the housing site supply plan that includes the contents that the housing site is supplied as appraisal

On the other hand, the Korea Land Corporation established the rules on the establishment and implementation of relocation measures (hereinafter “established rules on relocation measures”) as an internal provision to calculate the sale price of housing sites to be specially supplied to persons subject to relocation measures, and supplied housing sites to persons subject to relocation measures in the instant project area as calculated in accordance with Article 17 of the established rules on relocation measures. The method of calculating the sale price under each sale contract of this case as stipulated in the established rules

The supply price shall be calculated by calculating the arithmetic mean by the formula of 1) and 2) in the formula of the table included in the main sentence, but where the price calculated up to the portion not exceeding 265 square meters in the area of a site subject to sale exceeds 80 percent of the cost of creating the housing site, it shall be 80 percent of the cost of creating the housing site, and as for the portion exceeding 265 square meters, it shall be appraised. 1) [total project cost (excluding the cost of relocation measures) - Total project cost (excluding the cost of installing the basic living facilities) - Basic living facilities installation cost / (excluding the cost of installing the basic living facilities) ＋ (area of public facilities - area of existing public facilities - area of the public facilities to be supplied with compensation for a cost, the area of

The Defendant calculated the supply price of the instant multi-resident housing site in accordance with the details of the aforementioned announcement and the established rules for relocation measures, and determined the supply price per 1,691,804 won per 20 square meter, and calculated the specific sale price by applying the gap rate by parcel (in accordance with Article 17(3) of the Rules on Measures for Relocation, which provides that the supply price may be differentiated by taking into account the individual characteristics of the multi-resident housing site. In other words, with respect to the area of not more than 265 square meters among the multi-resident housing site, the Defendant calculated the sales price by applying the difference rate by parcel (in this case, the difference rate is expressed by the appraisal price according to the location, shape, surrounding city tax, etc.) to the above supply price by parcel. In other words, with respect to the area of not more than 265 square meters among the multi-resident housing site, the amount calculated by multiplying the above supply price by the difference

C. Conclusion of the instant sales contract and payment of the sales price

Of the plaintiffs, the deceased plaintiffs 13's litigation acceptances, the plaintiff 42 (Withdrawals), the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 48' litigation acceptances, the plaintiffs 13, 42 (Withdrawals), and the deceased plaintiffs 48 entered into a sales contract with the Korea National Housing Corporation on or before March 2007 as a person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter "the sales contract in this case"). After that, the plaintiff 42 (Withdrawals) succeeded to the rights and obligations of the deceased 42 (Withdrawals) on February 27, 2009, the deceased 13 succeeded to the rights and obligations of the deceased 13's above sales contract on June 13, 2009 by agreement with their inheritors, and the deceased 13's litigation acceptances inherited the rights and obligations of the deceased 13's above sales contract on June 28, 2009, the deceased 13's heir's death and loss of the deceased 489.

The plaintiffs were sold in lots and agreed on the "sale price in accordance with the contract" as stated in the "sale price" column of the current status of the sale in lots, which is the amount calculated by the defendant as above, to which the sale price in lots was calculated by the above method, and entered into the sales contract in this case. After that, the sale price was partially adjusted, the plaintiffs finally purchased the sale price according to the adjusted area. Accordingly, the sale price in lots was determined as the "sale price in lots" in the current status of the sale in lots (attached Form 3), and the sale price in lots was determined as the amount stated in the "final sale price after adjustment" column of the above Table. Among them, the appraisal price in the "sale price in excess of 265 square meters" column of the above Table was finally settled according to the adjustment of the area, and finally determined as the "sale price in excess of 265 square meters."

From the date of conclusion of the contract for sale to the end of 2010, the Plaintiffs paid the amount indicated in the “actual payment” column of the current status of the contract for sale in lots to the Defendant as the sale price, overdue interest, etc. In the case of the Plaintiff who has paid more than the amount indicated in the “final sale price after adjustment” column of the above table, the excess amount is the amount paid as overdue interest, and if the amount is less than the “final sale price after adjustment,” the difference is paid in advance before the agreed date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 12, 14, 18, 32, 39, 40, 58, 69, 72, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 23, Eul evidence Nos. 40 and 42 (including the whole number, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Summary of the cause of the instant claim

Although the Defendant, as a project executor of the housing site development project of this case, bears the burden of installing basic living facilities in accordance with Article 78(4) of the 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 Public Works Act”), each of the sales contracts of this case between the persons subject to relocation measures, with the amount included in the cost of installing the basic living facilities as the sale price, shall be paid to the Plaintiffs who succeeded to the rights and obligations of the buyer, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the cost of installing the basic living facilities, while the Plaintiffs suffered loss equivalent to the same amount, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the cost of installing the basic living facilities included in the sale price received from the Plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

On the other hand, in relation to the metropolitan transport facility charges, it constitutes a tort in which the defendant, in preliminary, calculated the charges in accordance with the measures to improve the metropolitan transport facility charges and transferred the charges to the plaintiffs by the method of determining the sale price. Thus, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiffs

4. Consumed legal doctrine

Article 78(1) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”) provides that a project operator shall be deemed to have established and implemented relocation measures even when he/she supplies a housing site or a house to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act. Meanwhile, the main text of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act provides that a project operator shall include basic living facilities according to the relevant local conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities, and that a project operator shall bear expenses incurred therefrom.

Comprehensively taking account of the contents, purpose, etc. of the above provisions, the project implementer’s special supply of housing sites or houses to those subject to relocation measures pursuant to the proviso of Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act is a method of relocation measures that a project implementer may choose based on delegation of Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act. Therefore, in the case of special supply, it is reasonable to deem that the project implementer should install basic living facilities under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act at the cost of the project implementer and provide them to those subject to relocation measures, as in the case of providing the settlement site. This constitutes a mandatory law that cannot

Furthermore, the purpose of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act is to provide a 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” of the said provision refers to roads, water supply and drainage facilities, electric facilities, telecommunications facilities, gas facilities, or district heating facilities, 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 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63089, Jun. 23, 201).

Therefore, if the person subject to the relocation measures pays the Defendant, who is the project executor, the basic cost of the living facilities, by including the cost of the basic living facilities under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act in the sale contract of each case, in the sale price, the amount equivalent to the cost of the basic living facilities out of the sale price is invalid in violation of the main sentence of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which is a mandatory law, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the

5. Calculating a legitimate sale price and amount of unjust gains;

A. Determination on the method of calculation

According to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant determined the unit price of the instant migrants’ housing site as “development cost” and obtained approval for the supply of the housing site. Accordingly, since the Defendant calculated the unit price of the instant migrants’ housing site by deducting the installation cost of basic living facilities from that amount based on the unit price of the instant migrants’ housing site development cost (=total project cost - relocation plan cost), the scope of unjust enrichment is reasonable by adding the installation cost of basic living facilities that the Defendant did not deduct based on the unit price of the housing site development cost.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant, in accordance with the rules on the relocation measures, supplied migrants’s housing site as a principle on the basis of 165 square meters or 265 square meters per parcel. Before entering into each sale contract of this case, the Defendant indicated the fact that only one housing site within the limit of 265 square meters is supplied as relocation measures. In fact, in calculating the supply unit price per 265 square meter, the sales price was calculated at a discounted price up to 265 square meters, and the portion exceeding 265 square meters was calculated as appraisal price, and the Plaintiffs also agreed to pay the sales price at an appraisal price. The Plaintiff appears to have concluded each sale contract of this case, knowing the fact that the housing site to be specially supplied as relocation measures is limited to 265 square meters per 265 square meters. Therefore, the same applies to the portion that the Defendant supplied to the Plaintiffs, who are those subject to relocation measures, is equally equal to the installation cost of basic living facilities with the general buyers, and it is reasonable to include the excess at the appraisal price (see Supreme Court Decision 20132.2014.

Therefore, a reasonable sale price under each sales contract of this case shall be calculated by adding the amount calculated by multiplying the sales price per 265 square meter less than 265 square meter by the total cost of housing site development (excluding relocation expenses) less basic living facility expenses, and the amount calculated by multiplying the appraisal price per 1 square meter by the area of supply exceeding 265 square meters.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the difference should be recognized as unjust enrichment by comparing the amount calculated by subtracting the basic facilities installation cost from the appraisal price, rather than the cost of creating a housing site, in determining whether the defendant obtained unjust enrichment from the plaintiffs, since the housing site was sold in general in accordance with the appraisal price in the case of general sale, not the special supply according to the relocation plan.

However, inasmuch as the Defendant concluded a supply contract with a supply price separately determined according to the contents of the rules on relocation measures, rather than an appraisal, in supplying the housing site to those subject to relocation measures including the Plaintiffs, as seen above, if the supply price of the housing site calculated as above includes the cost of basic living facilities, then the Defendant’s unjust enrichment should be deemed established. The supply price of the housing site is not less than the cost of creation of the housing site. In this case where the supply price of the housing site is not determined based on appraisal price, the cost of basic living facilities should not be calculated based on the supply price of the housing site equivalent to the appraisal price

6. Determination as to the existence of unjust enrichment

(a) The housing site preparation cost;

1) Total project cost: The total project cost of the instant project is KRW 7,968,845,621,00 as follows, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 14, 14, 3, and 9, and the total project cost of the instant project is KRW 7,859,639,639,50,000 (=7,968,845,621,000) - 109,206,121,000 in the course of calculating a legitimate unit price for sale, hereinafter the above amount is considered as the project cost of the instant project.

(3) Direct labor cost 127,023,023,203,2001,2001, 209,2001, 2001, 200, 364,94, 374,000, 200, 364, 374, 346, 346, 200, 200, 200, 360, 360, 360, 770, 346, 200, 5.69, 168, 848, 406, 200, 300, 369, 200, 300, 169, 1698, 48, 406, 160, 206, 300, 2440, 865, 1606, 1606, etc.

2) Cost supply area: A’s certificate No. 14 and No. 25 and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: (a) the sum of the area supplied with consideration among the area subject to business of the instant project district is 9,307,148 square meters, which is 3,545,124 square meters.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs asserts that the paid supply area of the project district of this case is 3,770,38 square meters. In other words, the Defendant, around May 2005, illegally treated urban support facilities as 26,550 square meters under the name of retention area, and 198,174 square meters under the name of reduction area of urban support facilities, respectively, are excluded from 3,770,38 square meters under the name of reduction area of urban support facilities. The paid supply area is 3,770,38 square meters under the name of 3,770,38 square meters under the name of reduction area of urban support facilities. If the purport of the argument is added to the above written evidence Nos. 88,89, B, 9, and 13, the Defendant’s disposal area is 3,770,38 square meters under the project plan or 636,905 square meters among urban support facilities, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the above urban support facilities were 2504,5050 square meters under the above general supply area.

3) A housing site development cost: The development cost per square meter of the instant housing site is KRW 2,217,028 (i.e., KRW 7,859,639,639,50,000 ± 3,545,124 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(b) Costs of installing basic living facilities;

(i)Calculation of the cost of installing basic living facilities;

The cost of installing the basic living facilities is the sum of the following amount: (b) the cost of creating the living facilities.

The site cost for basic living facilities included in the main sentence = Total site cost 】 (the installation area/total project area of basic living facilities) 】 (the direct personnel cost, sales and general management cost, and capital cost which falls under the basic living facilities site cost and creation cost among the capital cost caused by the creation cost for basic living facilities.

(ii)the cost of sites for basic facilities;

A) Of the total project area of the instant housing site development project, the items of facilities falling under basic living facilities and the installation area thereof are a total of 1,705,795 square meters as follows. The total amount of the site cost related to basic living facilities is an amount calculated by multiplying the total project area by the ratio of the total project area of KRW 3,149,000,090,000, the total project area is KRW 577,142,279,087.

Water supply site 27,381 3 square meters 129,687 4 drainage 9,003 5 heating stations 79,12 6 sewage treatment stations 35,998 7 sewage pumping stations 1,705,705,795

B) Determinations on individual items at issue as to whether or not they are included in the installation area of basic facilities are as follows:

(a) Roads: 1,422,214 square meters recognized;

㈎ 갑 제88호증, 을 제13, 23호증의 기재와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 2005년 3월 무렵 이 사건 사업의 계획상 도로면적이 1,475,882㎡로 산정되어 있었고 피고는 2005. 5. 17.경 이를 기준으로 택지조성원가(1㎡당 2,247,833원), 이주자택지 공급단가(1㎡당 1,691,804원)를 산정하여 원고들과 이 사건 분양계약을 체결한 사실이 주5) 인정된다.

㈏ 피고는, 주택법 시행령 별표가 간선시설인 도로의 범위를 규정하고 있는데, 주택단지의 주된 출입구로부터 길이가 200미터를 초과하는 도로만 간선시설로 인정될 수 있으므로, 길이가 200미터에 미치지 못하는 도로 부분은 간선시설에서 제외되어야 하고, 주택법 제2조 에 주택단지는 폭 8미터 이상의 도로로만 구분될 수 있다고 규정하므로, 폭이 8미터에 미치지 못하는 도로는 주택단지 안의 도로에 불과하여 간선시설이 아니라고 주장한다. 즉 도로부지 중 간선도로에 해당하는 897,743㎡를 제외한 나머지 도로는 생활기본시설에 해당하지 않는다고 주장한다.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the area of the main road, the main road, the auxiliary road, the aggregate road, and the area of the main road of not less than 8m in width should be excluded from the area of the main road, and the ancillary claim should be excluded from the area of the main road, the main road of not less than 8m in width. In addition, the defendant asserts that the area of the main road, the main road and the main road should be excluded from the area of the main road, the main road and the main road of the main road, at least the area of the national expressway, the main road and the State-funded local highway

㈐ 그러나 구 주택법이 적용되는 주택건설사업 또는 대지조성사업에 의하여 설치되는 간선시설인 도로는 그 사업지구 안에 있는 주택단지들의 입구와 그 사업지구 밖에 있는 도로를 연결하는 역할을 담당하는 것으로서 도로의 길이나 폭과 무관하게 모두 그 주택단지 등으로서의 기능 달성 및 주민의 통행을 위하여 필수적인 시설이라 할 수 있고, 이에 대하여는 사업주체가 구 주택법령 및 이에 기초한 주택건설사업계획 또는 대지조성사업계획에 따라 그 설치의무를 진다. 공익사업인 택지개발사업지구 내에서 주택건설사업이나 대지조성사업을 시행하는 사업주체가 이주대책대상자에게 생활기본시설로서 제공하여야 하는 도로는 그 길이나 폭을 불문하고 구 주택법의 위 규정들에서 설치에 관하여 직접적으로 규율하고 있고 사업주체가 그 설치의무를 지는 구 주택법 제2조 제8호 에서 정하고 있는 간선시설에 해당하는 도로, 즉 주택단지 안의 도로를 당해 주택단지 밖에 있는 동종의 도로에 연결시키는 도로를 모두 포함한다고 할 것이다{ 대법원 2013. 10. 24. 선고 2012다45559 판결 , 대법원 2013. 11. 14. 선고 2012다97406, 2012다97413(병합) 판결 등 참조}. 이와 다른 전제에 서 있는 피고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

The concept of "ilway roads, assistant roads, aggregate roads, and national roads" is the concept of the road under Article 43(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 9 of the Regulations on the Determination, Structure, and Installation Standards of Urban Planning Facilities, which are the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation established pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which classify roads according to their functions. In addition to the contents of the former Housing Act, the role and utility of roads which are arterial facilities as well as the purpose of the former Public Works Act or the en banc Decision in order to provide a basis for living for those subject to relocation measures as seen earlier, the issue of whether they are roads as basic facilities should be determined in accordance with the above legal principles, and it is not possible to be determined uniformly according to the functional classification of roads as stipulated in the "Rules on the Determination, Structure, and Installation Standards of Urban Planning Facilities".

In light of the above legal principles, the road area of the above road area of 1,475,882 square meters in the project district of this case includes approximately 19,90 square meters and about 33,768 square meters in the plot of land for the Gangseo-gu Highway (No. 48,49,52). At least in light of the size and function of the Gyeong-do Highway and the Gyeong-Seoul Expressway, it is difficult to see that the road located outside the relevant housing complex is connected to the "road of the same kind" located outside the relevant housing complex, and it is difficult to see that the road area of the 1,422,214 square meters in the project site of this case is excluded from the scope of the main residential facilities which are the basic residential facilities (i.e., 1,475,82-19, 90-33,768 square meters in the area of the 1,422,214 square meters in the project site of this case (the defendant asserts that the area should be excluded from the installation of the above basic residential facilities.

(b) Square: 27,381 square meters recognized;

If Eul’s evidence Nos. 23, Eul’s evidence Nos. 43, 44, and 47 added the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the total area of 27,381 square meters installed in the area of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (number 1 omitted) and the traffic plaza installed in the day-day (number 2 omitted) appears to be a traffic plaza attached to the road, which is part of a week. A general plaza 14,896 square is not deemed to be a basic living facility. Of the traffic squares, the traffic plaza of the road members of the roads (number 3 omitted) among the traffic squares is deemed to be a metropolitan plaza attached to the Dong-gu Highway, which is a period of time, and thus, it cannot be deemed to be a basic living facility for “the Dong-gu land.”

(3) Recognition of all water supply sites (129,687 square meters) and pressurates (79,112 square meters)

The defendant asserts that the area of the water supply site is the relocation site of the pipes for wide-area waterworks that existed before the housing site development project of this case, and that the area of the water supply site is also 76,760 square meters of the pressure plant area for the existing wide-area waterworks, and it does not constitute the basic living facilities.

However, in light of the fact that there is no site for waterworks and sewerage pipes in a housing site created by the housing site development project in addition to the above housing site development project, the above wide-area waterworks pipelines are likely to be installed or transferred in order to supply waterworks to the housing site created by the housing site development project in this case, and if pipes play such a role, they can be deemed to constitute facilities linking the key facilities outside the housing site with the infrastructure outside the housing complex, so this part of the water supply site and the provisional pressure area shall also be included in the area of the basic facilities.

(4) All of the drainage lots (9,003 square meters) are recognized.

The Defendant asserts that the drainage does not constitute a fundamental facility because it constitutes a key facility, not a drainage or water supply facility connected to drainage facilities. However, the drainage is a site for “discharge facilities” under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, and it is included in a basic living facility.

(5) Modern (6,189 square meters), gas supply facilities (10,439 square meters), and integrated energy supply facilities (42,527 square meters): Not to recognize all.

If a project undertaker supplies a site corresponding to a gas supply facility, integrated energy supply facility, or substation site to a person who supplies gas, heating, or electricity to the relevant area for the cost of housing site development at least the cost of housing site development, the cost of the site cannot be deemed to have been transferred to the sale price (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da37374, 37381, Jan. 16, 2014).

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 17 and 34 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant et al. can find out the fact that the land for transformation stations, gas supply facilities, and integrated energy supply facilities within the housing site development project district of this case was supplied at a price higher than the cost of housing site development to a person who supplies gas, heating, and electricity to this area, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had paid the land to the plaintiffs, including the cost of sale in lots. Therefore, the

(6) Sewage treatment plant: All of 35,998 square meters are recognized.

Although the defendant asserts that the sewage treatment site does not constitute a key facility stipulated in Article 23 of the Housing Act, etc., it is not a basic living facility, the sewage treatment site is a final facility for treating sewage, and it is included in the basic living facility as a kind of drainage facility.

(7) Wastewater pumping stations: recognition of all of 2,400 square meters.

The defendant asserts that it does not fall under the main facilities for living because it does not fall under the main facilities for the sewage relay pumps, but the sewage relay pumps are the main facilities for living because it is a facility for the movement of sewage.

(8) Rivers, reservoirs, etc.: lack of evidence that can be recognized as a site for basic living facilities.

(iii) cost of creating basic living facilities;

A) Items and amounts of the construction cost deemed to be for the creation of basic living facilities among the total construction cost for creation of a basic living facility are as follows, and the aggregate amount is KRW 978,468,243,58.

2) Recognition of 1 excellent construction cost of Nos. 43,343,00,00 included in the main sentence: Provided, That in the case of Nos. 4,5,7 or 10 / [Calculation] of the amount calculated according to the following / [19,895,0003 water supply capacity of 18,460,000 4 and 63,017,017,982, 9715 street of 15,516,47,47,4888, 160, 307, 107, 407, 408, 107, 407, 307, 407, 407, 407, 107, 307, 408, 530, 5308, 701, 83639, 196, 47, 1967, 297, 7467, etc.

Note 8) 3,595,947,788

Note 9) 3,403,288,242

Note 10) 5,498,338,481

Note 11) 1,246,106,777

Note 12) 1,378,066,901

[Calculation] Regarding the entire project site of this case, 65,396,00,000 won for roads and packaging, 16,102,00,000 won for street lamps, 426,11,000,000 won for underground streets, and 41,200,000 won for tunnels, 41,20,000 won for bridges, and 138,951,000,000 won for bridges (rivers) and 65,375,000,000 won for bridges (rivers) within the project district of this case. Of the above expenses, only the amount equivalent to 1,42,214 square meters for basic living facilities among the total road size of 1,475,82 square meters in the project district of this case shall be recognized as the cost of creating basic living facilities.

B) Determinations on the items at issue as to whether or not they are included in the cost of creating individual living facilities are as follows.

(a) Expenses related to the metropolitan transport facilities (such as common morals-Non roads, identification line charges, and other charges for the metropolitan transport facilities);

In addition, Article 11-2 (1) 3 of the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Special Act”) provides that the charges for intercity transport facilities shall not be imposed on each of the above roads as arterial facilities, which correspond to the basic living facilities that meet the relevant local conditions, and are borne by the Defendant and included in the development cost. Since Article 11-2 (1) 3 of the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Intercity Transport Act”) provides that “the construction of housing sites and the construction of housing in accordance with the implementation of relocation measures under Article 78 of the former Public Works Act” of the housing site development project, the portion supplied pursuant to the relocation measures cannot be imposed on the project operator, and the project operator also cannot transfer the amount equivalent to the charges to the person subject to relocation measures. In addition, the aforementioned portion is invalid and thus void.

Therefore, even if Article 11 subparag. 1, the former part of Article 11-4(1), Article 2 subparag. 1, and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Intercity Transport Act are applicable to the charges imposed only on metropolitan transport facilities in metropolitan areas, and the Mayor/Do Governor imposes on the project operator the cost incurred in increasing the value of the housing sites and houses in metropolitan areas as the charges are required for the construction and improvement of metropolitan transport facilities in metropolitan areas. Inasmuch as those subject to relocation measures who are supplied with the housing sites in metropolitan areas are also entitled to benefit from the construction and improvement of intercity transport facilities, the charges for intercity transport facilities cannot be deemed as falling under the cost of establishing basic residential facilities which are to be provided as the basis for the livelihood of the person subject to relocation measures. Also, Article 11-2(1)3 of the former Intercity Transport Act provides that the charges for intercity transport facilities are not imposed on the person subject to relocation measures, including the charges for the construction and improvement of intercity transport facilities in accordance with the provisions of Article 78 of the said Act.

Meanwhile, since the Defendant did not actually pay the above metropolitan transport facility charges, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant obtained unjust benefits regarding the amount transferred to the Plaintiffs. However, according to the overall purport of the written evidence and oral argument Nos. 51 and 52, it can be recognized that the operator of the instant business, including the Defendant, actually paid the transportation facility charges, such as an identification party contributions, so the above assertion is rejected.

(2) The creation of a river hole, landscape architecture hole, urban support facility site, storage site, light crossing river BOX, digital city, SGN SYSESM and landscape facility cost, waste transport pipe, incineration pipe, structure incineration station, structure construction work, cultural property inspection and excavation cost, wild trees disposal work, construction waste disposal, library, museum (public relations center), conservation charge, conservation charge, conservation charge, etc.

In light of the nature of the above items, it is difficult to see that they are for the installation of arterial facilities or basic living facilities connecting key facilities such as roads as stipulated in the former Housing Act, and the nature of the expenses incurred therefrom is unclear, and even if all the evidence submitted in this case are collected, it is insufficient to recognize that they are the installation cost of basic living facilities, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, it shall not be included

(iv) direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, management expenses, capital expenses;

In addition to the statement of evidence Nos. 14 and 46, the housing site development project in this case: ① direct labor cost is 1.93% of the total amount of site cost, construction cost, and direct labor cost is 5.44% of the total amount of site cost, construction cost, and direct labor cost; ③ other expenses are 0.24% of the total amount of site cost, construction cost, and direct labor cost; ④ capital cost is calculated by multiplying the cumulative total amount of input cost by the capital cost ratio. Each of the above items of expenses can be deemed to be accompanied by or contributed to the installation of basic living facilities as well as the housing site development project in this case; and the total cost and construction cost are included in the total cost. Thus, the part related to the site cost of basic living facilities and construction cost in each of the above items of expenses must be included in the calculation of the cost of basic living facilities. The details and amount calculated as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 구분 총 사업비 생활기본시설 계산 방식 연번 액수(원) 연번 액수(원) 용지비 ① 3,149,000,090,000 ⑦ 577,142,279,087 조성비 ② 3,432,513,000,000 ⑧ 978,468,243,588 직접인건비 ③ 127,023,203,000 ⑨ 30,023,283,087 (⑦+⑧)×1.93% 판매관리비 ④ 364,944,374,000 ⑩ 86,258,479,033 (⑦+⑧+⑨)×5.44% 기타비용 ⑤ 16,100,487,000 ⑪ 3,805,521,133 (⑦+⑧+⑨)×0.24% 자본비용 ⑥ 770,058,346,000 ⑫ 182,011,469,044 ⑥×(⑦+⑧+⑨)/(①+②+③) 합계 302,098,752,297 (⑨+⑩+⑪+⑫)

(a) Direct labor cost: 30,023,283,087 won;

= (Land cost = 577,142,279,087 + Creation cost + 978,468,243,588) ¡¿ 1.93%

(b) Sales and management expenses: 86,258,479,033 won;

Site cost of KRW 577,142,279,087 + creation cost of KRW 978,468,243,588 + Direct labor cost of KRW 30,023,283,087 = 1,585,63,805,762

1,585,63,805,762 won x 5.44% = Sales management expenses 86,258,479,03 won

(c)Other expenses: 3,805,521,133 won

= 1,585,63,805,762 Won x 0.24%]

(d) Capital costs: 182,011,469,044 won;

= 770,058,346,00 won ¡¿ 1,585,63,805,762 won / (3,149,00,000,000 won + 3,432,513,00,000 won + 127,023,203,000 won)

5) Total sum of cost of basic living facilities

The sum of the cost of basic living facilities is KRW 1,857,709,274,972 (=land cost of KRW 577,142,279,087 + creation cost of KRW 978,468,243,58 + direct labor cost, sales management cost, other expenses, and capital cost of KRW 302,098,752,297).

C. Justifiable sale price and existence of unjust enrichment

(i) the determination of legitimate proceeds of sale;

A) The reasonable unit price for the portion not exceeding 265§³

The legitimate unit sale price for the portion below 265m2 to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant according to the instant sales contract is KRW 7,859,639,50,500,000, which is the amount calculated by deducting the total amount of installation cost of basic living facilities from KRW 1,857,709,274,972, and KRW 6,001,930,225,028, which is the amount calculated by dividing the total amount of installation cost of basic living facilities by KRW 3,545,124m2.

B. The reasonable total amount of the sale price

(1) As seen earlier, the Defendant supplied the land less than 265 square meters to migrants, including the Plaintiffs by reflecting a certain gap rate in KRW 1,691,804. If a business entity individually determines the sale price of a migrants’ housing site by applying a gap within the scope of its discretion, it may be deemed that the development cost of the entire migrants’ housing site was differentiated in accordance with the location conditions. Therefore, in calculating the development cost and basic living facilities installation cost of the individual migrants’ housing site and the legitimate sale price pursuant thereto, the amount shall be calculated by reflecting the relevant gap rate (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da6572, Aug. 20, 2014). The Plaintiffs’ purchase price should be calculated by reflecting the relevant difference in the unit sale price calculated as above with respect to the portion of 265 square meters or less in the area of the housing site for the individual migrants’s housing site. The pertinent portion of the sale price calculated by reflecting the relevant difference in KRW 1,693,09,000 per 26 square meter.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs asserts that the difference rate should be applied at a six-year period after the lawsuit was instituted in November 2008, and that the defendant's lawful distribution price should be applied, and that it should be dismissed or dismissed as it is the actual attack defense method and unfairly deprives or limits the plaintiffs' right to defense. In other words, the plaintiffs' assertion that the difference rate should be applied to the whole of the plaintiffs before remands and did not file an appeal after being sentenced to the entire judgment against them would deprive or limit the plaintiffs' opportunity to defend. However, in a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment, the burden of proof of facts as to the existence and scope of the benefits they gain without any legal ground is, in principle, borne by the plaintiff, and the court may determine it by comprehensively taking into account all the indirect facts presented at the hearing when determining the existence and scope of unjust enrichment. Even if the defendant applied the rate of supply to the sale contract in this case after remands, it is difficult to see that the defendant's assertion that the aforementioned difference rate should be applied to the calculation of the unit price of supply before remands and thus, in light of the aforementioned legal principles as to the plaintiffs' allegation.

In the event that the purchase price exceeds 265 square meters among the plaintiffs, the appraisal price was applied to the portion exceeding 265 square meters, and the appraisal price by the plaintiff as to the excess portion (attached Form 4) is the same as the relevant amount stated in the "excess portion" in the sale price calculation sheet.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A person who sells a parcel of land with a size not exceeding 265m2” shall be liable for the payment of the purchase price shall be liable for the payment of the purchase price of a parcel of land within 265m2, and a person who sells a parcel of land exceeding 265m2 shall be liable for the payment of the purchase price of a parcel of land within 265m2.

2) Whether unjust enrichment exists

[Attachment 4] In comparison between the details of the statement in the calculation sheet of sale price and the plaintiffs' legitimate total amount of sale price (the "total amount" in the above table) calculated by the above method and the amount stated in the "final sale price after adjustment" in the calculation sheet of sale price for the plaintiffs (attached Form 4), it can be known that the legitimate sale price for each plaintiff exceeds all the purchase price for the plaintiffs (in case of the plaintiffs, the actual payment exceeds the legitimate sale price, but this is because the interest for delay is included in the interest for delay). Ultimately, there is no unjust enrichment in relation to each sale contract of this case by the defendant.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case against the defendant is without merit, and it shall be dismissed. Since the decision of the first instance is unfair, the decision of the court of first instance shall be accepted by the defendant's appeal and it shall be modified as the decision of the first instance, including the preliminary claim added in the trial prior to the remand and the claim expanded in the trial subsequent to the remand.

[Attachment List, etc. omitted]

Judges Lee Dong-won (Presiding Judge)

1) On the other hand, the defendant asserted that in the trial after remanding the case, the plaintiff 12, 7, 23, 32, 33, 49, 50, and 64, etc. were not qualified as a party since they sold the migrants' housing site that they purchased from the defendant to a third party. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant, such as Eul Nos. 40 and 41 (including the virtual number), is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts. Even if the above plaintiffs sold the migrants' housing site to a third party, this is not a matter of eligibility as a party, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

2) Following the determination of whether unjust enrichment occurred under the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs’ payment for overdue interests or the amount of discount for advance payment should not be considered, and the determination shall be based on “final sales price after adjustment”.

3) Relocation expenses are expenses equivalent to the difference arising from supplying migrants's housing sites at low prices compared to those for the general supply of housing sites. This does not constitute expenses to the Defendants, but do not constitute expenses for creating the housing site, and it does not constitute the amount disbursed as expenses for creating the housing site.

4) KRW 577,142,279,087 = Total land area of KRW 3,149,00,090,000 x (the site area of basic living facilities 1,705,795 square meters/total business area of KRW 9,307,148 square meters)

5) Around March 2006, the project in this case increased the road area from 1,601,481 square meters to 1,601,481 square meters due to a change in the project plan (written evidence No. 88, No. 9, and No. 13), and the housing site development cost on which the plaintiffs’ sale price was determined shall be based based on the road area at the time of calculating the housing site development cost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da109811, Sept. 4, 2014). As such, the road area on the project plan around March 2005, which the Defendant used as the basis for the determination of actual sale price.

6) Rule 9 of the Act on the Determination, Structure and Installation Standards of Urban Planning Facilities: (a) Major arterial roads are classified as follows: (a) Roads: Roads constituting the framework of a Si/Gun, as roads to connect major areas in a Si/Gun or to cope with the mass passing traffic by linking them between a Si/Gun and other Sis/Guns; (b) A auxiliary arterial roads: Roads constituting the outermost of a neighboring residential area, as roads to perform a duty of congested traffic in a Si/Gun by linking the main areas in a Si/Gun with a cluster road or major traffic generating sources; (c) Roads constituting the outermost of a neighboring residential area, as roads to perform a duty of congested traffic in a neighboring residential area by linking the traffic in a neighboring residential area to a auxiliary arterial roads; (d) Roads partitioning the traffic congested in a neighboring residential area; (e) Roads partitioned by households (referring to areas surrounded by roads); Special roads, other than exclusive roads for motor vehicles and exclusive use;

(7) The Defendant asserts that the area of the river bridge should be deducted from the road area because the area of the river bridge should be deducted from the area of the road. However, the river bridge area of the river bridge area of the 2,668 square meters included in the above traffic plaza is related to a bridge installed on the road area of the 349,107 square meters on the land use planning site area of the 349,107 square meters, and the reason is that the total area of the traffic plaza area of the 27,381 square meters in Sungnam-si and the 27,381 square meters in the 27,381 square meters in the 27,381 square meters in the 2,668 square meters in the 2,668 square meters in the 2,668 square meters in the 2000 square meters in the 2000 square meters in the 200 square meters in the 200 square.

Note 8) Total soil expenses of KRW 183,306,00,000 x (1,705,795 square meters / 9,307,148 square meters)

9) Total appurtenant work costs of KRW 18,569,00,000 x (1,705,795 square meters / 9,307,148 square meters)

10) Total investigation and design cost of KRW 30,000,000 x (1,705,795 square meters / 9,307,148 square meters)

Note 11) Total confirmation survey cost of KRW 6,79,00,000 x (1,705,795 square meters / 9,307,148 square meters)

Note 12) Total incidental expenses of KRW 7,519,00,000 x (1,705,795 square meters / 9,307,148 square meters)

Note 13) The reasonable unit price of sale per 1 square meter is 1,693,009 won higher than the unit price of supply applied by the Defendant to the area not exceeding 265 square meters upon entering into the instant supply contract.