1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amounts shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

The reasoning of this part of the court’s reasoning is the same as that of “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The Defendant asserted by the Plaintiffs, when calculating the pre-sale conversion price under each of the above parcelling-out contracts (hereinafter “each of the instant parcelling-out contracts”), calculated by applying 100% of the estimated development cost, even though the housing site cost should be calculated by applying 70% of the estimated development cost rather than the estimated development cost, and the construction cost should be calculated by applying the standard construction cost even though the construction cost should be calculated based on the actual construction cost.

In addition, in calculating legitimate housing site costs and construction costs, ① sales costs and general management costs are not included in items that can be added to housing site costs, and the apartment of this case is a public rental apartment, so there is no room for separate propaganda costs, such as private-use apartment, and there is no room for separate propaganda costs. Among construction costs, it is unfair to separately recognize general management costs even though general management costs of branch offices or head offices are included in construction costs in addition to construction costs, and it is against the intent of the Rental Housing Act and subordinate statutes to include sales management costs of head office in construction costs.

(2) In addition, equity capital costs may not be included in the housing site costs and construction costs, as the Enforcement Rules of the Rental Housing Act already reflect the “self-interest on the own fund” in the construction cost, separately from housing site costs and construction costs.

However, based on the pre-sale conversion price calculated by the Defendant as above, the Plaintiffs paid to the Defendant the purchase price in an amount equivalent to each item stated in the “sale price of the attached sheet” according to each sales contract of this case.

Since the part exceeding the legitimate pre-sale conversion price of each of the sales contracts in this case is invalid in violation of the mandatory law, the defendant exceeded the legitimate pre-sale conversion price.