1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except for the case where the second to 11 roads at the bottom of the 10th judgment of the court of first instance are used as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【The part used for the construction of a road】 The Defendant asserts that, in calculating the site cost for the construction of a road, 18,493.8 square meters of 55,185 square meters in the instant project district, E.S. shall be excluded from the area where the basic living facilities are installed, since E.S. construction is not acquired without compensation and the site cost is not disbursed. The Defendant asserts that only the area acquired with compensation, excluding the above gratuitously reverted part,

In principle, when the defendant calculates the cost of the basic living facilities to be returned in unjust enrichment, the method that reflects the cost of the basic living facilities when E.S. calculates the sale price shall be based.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 10 and 11, EP did not exclude the land acquired without compensation in calculating the development cost of the instant project, and it can be acknowledged that the total site cost for the entire site area in the instant project area reflects the development cost without considering differences in the acquisition cost of individual land.

According to this, the site cost reflected in the development cost does not vary depending on individual land, the entire project district of this case was evaluated and reflected in the same amount, and the sale price in each sales contract concluded with the plaintiffs was calculated accordingly.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the sales contract was concluded on the road area that is gratuitously reverted to the above construction between the plaintiffs and E.S. Construction. Thus, the sales contract was concluded on the premise that the average site cost was paid in the instant project district.