[1] In a case where one of the parties to a contract enters into a three-party contract with the other party and a third party or with the consent of the other party comprehensively transfers the status of the party to the contract to a third party, whether the third party acquires all the claims and obligations already incurred under the previous contract (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a project operator supplies a housing site or a house to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to the proviso of Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, whether the project operator shall establish a basic living facility under Article 78(4) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor at the expense of the project operator and provide it to the person subject to relocation

[3] Whether the main text of Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and the main text of Article 78(4) of the same Act stipulating the duty to establish and implement relocation measures is a mandatory law (affirmative)

[4] Meaning of “basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions” under Article 78(4) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor; and in a case where a person subject to relocation measures is paid expenses to a project operator, etc. by including the basic living facilities installation cost under the said provision in the sale price in a housing site or a housing supply contract entered into by a project operator, etc. with a person subject to relocation measures, whether the project operator shall return the amount equivalent to the cost to the person subject to relocation measures as unjust enrichment (affirmative)

[1] Where one of the parties to a contract transfers a position as a party to a contract comprehensively to a third party with the other party or with the consent of the other party, the third party who has taken over the status as a party to a contract shall also be transferred all the claims and obligations already incurred under the previous contract by succeeding the transferor's contractual status.

[2] [Majority Opinion] Article 78(1) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) provides that a project operator is obligated to establish and implement relocation measures. Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2072, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”) provides that “The relocation measures shall be established and implemented in cases where the person who wishes to move among those subject to relocation measures is more than 10 houses unless there are such unavoidable reasons as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and that the project operator shall be deemed to have provided housing sites or houses to those subject to relocation measures under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (including cases where the project operator supplied housing sites to those subject to relocation measures under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, etc.).

[Concurring Opinion by Justice Yang Chang-soo, Justice Shin Young-chul, and Justice Min Il-young] In a case where a project operator specially supplies a housing site or a house to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to the proviso of Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008), the project operator is deemed to have formulated and implemented the relocation measures, and thus, it does not have to establish and implement a separate relocation measures. As such, with respect to a housing site or a house specially supplied,

[3] The purpose of the former 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 Act”) is to promote the promotion of public welfare and the appropriate protection of property rights through the efficient implementation of public works by prescribing matters concerning compensation for losses incurred by the acquisition or use of land, etc. necessary for public works through consultation or expropriation. The relocation measures under the above Act are a system established to restore the previous living conditions to the person subject to relocation measures who lose their base of life by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public works and ensure a living worthy of human dignity at the same time. Thus, Article 78(1) of the former Act, which provides for the project operator’s duty to establish and implement relocation measures, as well as Article 78(4) of the former Act, provides for the contents of relocation measures at the project operator’s discretion, is a mandatory law that cannot be ruled out.

[4] [Majority Opinion] The purpose of Article 78(4) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) is to provide a basis for living for those subject to relocation measures. As such, “basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities,” under the said provision refers to roads, water supply system, telecommunications facilities, gas facilities, or district heating facilities, which are required to be installed by a housing construction project operator or a housing site development project operator under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as Article 23 of the Housing Act. Therefore, if a project operator and a person subject to relocation measures or a person subject to relocation measures possess housing sites or housing constructed by a supplier under his/her arrangement, and thus, a project operator is obligated to return housing units or housing units to those subject to relocation measures to the project operator without any legal basis for the cost of installation of the housing units or housing units.”

[Concurring Opinion by Justice Kim Nung-hwan] Even though Article 78(4) of the former 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”) does not necessarily mean “arterial facilities” as provided in Article 23 of the Housing Act as stated in the Majority Opinion in its item, the scope shall be limited to that of a person subject to relocation measures, including not only the boundary of a housing complex, but also the installation cost of a house supplied to a person subject to relocation measures from the facility outside a housing complex, to the boundary of a housing complex, and also the installation cost of a house that is supplied to the person subject to relocation measures, it is interpreted that the person subject to relocation measures cannot be required to bear the cost of relocation measures. Ultimately, it is reasonable that the majority opinion should maintain the purport that the person subject to relocation measures should have the ownership price of a housing site, the cost of building a housing site and the cost of building a house except for the basic living facilities in the above meaning.

[1] Articles 453 and 454 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 78(1) and (4) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007); Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722 of Feb. 29, 2008); Article 78(1) and (4) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007); Article 105 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works; Article 40(2) of the Housing Act

[4] Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da35783 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1779), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da67126 delivered on March 15, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 886), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da5778 delivered on July 25, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1817) (amended) (amended)

Plaintiff 1 and 100 others (Attorneys Kim Jong- full, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 12 Intervenor and 17 others (Attorneys Kim Jong- full, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Barun and four others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

EP (Law Firm Han-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na24560, 24577 decided August 22, 2007

The lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s motion to intervene in the case is dismissed. The litigation cost incurred by the application to intervene is borne by the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

A. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to succession participation

If one of the parties to a contract transfers a position as a party to a contract comprehensively to a third party by concluding a three-dimensional contract or obtaining the consent of the other party, the third party who has taken over the status as a party to the contract shall succeed to the status of the transferor's contractual position to have all the claims and obligations already incurred in the previous

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s successor comprehensively accepted the status of the contractor for each of the instant sales contracts from 18 persons, including Plaintiff (Withdrawal) 12, and comprehensively accepted the claim for return of unjust enrichment arising in connection with each of the instant sales contracts with the Defendant’s consent.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to participation in succession due to a contract for succession of rights and obligations as otherwise alleged

B. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of a person subject to relocation measures

Article 78(1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) provides that “A project operator shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement subsidies to those who are deprived of their base of livelihood as a result of the implementation of public works for the purpose of providing residential buildings (hereinafter “persons subject to relocation measures”), as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Thus, a project operator should establish and implement relocation measures for those who lose their base of livelihood by providing non-voluntary residential buildings due to the implementation of public works.”

In addition, even if migrants have requested or consented to include their residence in the process of determining the scope of the public service implementation zone, it is only the motive or consideration factor of the decision process of the public service implementation zone. Therefore, if relocations are inevitably required or enforced after the decision of the public service implementation zone, the project operator should also establish and implement relocation measures for such migrants.

Therefore, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff does not constitute a person subject to relocation measures because the plaintiff voluntarily requested that his residential building owned by him be included in the housing site development project district of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of a

C. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment and scope of unjust enrichment

Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act provides that a project operator’s duty to establish and implement relocation measures as above, and Article 40(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”) provides that “Measures for relocation shall be established and implemented where the person who wishes to move among those subject to relocation measures is at least 10 persons, except in extenuating circumstances as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation: Provided, That where a project operator supplies a housing site or house to a person subject to relocation measures under related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the Housing Act (including cases where the housing site or house is supplied by the project operator’s arrangement), the main sentence of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act provides that “The details of relocation measures shall include road, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other basic living facilities in accordance with the relevant local conditions, and the expenses necessary therefor shall be borne by the

In full view of the above provisions, the supply of housing sites or houses (hereinafter “special supply”) by the project implementer to the persons subject to the relocation measures under the proviso of Article 40(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Housing Act, is a method of taking the relocation measures that the project implementer may choose on the basis of delegation under Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act. Therefore, in the case of special supply, it is reasonable to deem that the person subject to the relocation measures should install the basic living facilities under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act at the expense of the project implementer and provide them to the persons subject to the relocation measures, as in the case of providing the relocation settlement site. It does not change on the ground that the market price of housing sites or houses

In addition, the purpose of the former Public Works Act is to promote the promotion of public welfare and the appropriate protection of property rights through the efficient implementation of public works by prescribing matters concerning compensation for losses incurred by the acquisition or use of land, etc. required for public works through consultation or expropriation. Measures for resettlement under the said Act is a system that is prepared to restore the previous living conditions to those subject to relocation measures who lose their base of livelihood by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public works and ensure a living worthy of human dignity at the same time. Thus, Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act, which provides for the duty to establish and implement relocation measures, and Article 78(4) of the same Act, which provides for the contents of the measures for resettlement, is a mandatory law that can not be excluded from the application by agreement of the parties or at

Furthermore, the purpose of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act is to provide the person subject to relocation measures with a basis of living. Thus, the term "basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities" under the said provision means 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.

Therefore, if a person subject to relocation measures was to pay the project operator, etc. the cost of installing the basic living facilities as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act by including the cost of installing the basic living facilities in the sale price under a special supply contract for a housing site or housing contract entered into between a person subject to relocation measures and a project operator or a supplier under his/her arrangement, the special supply contract violates Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act that includes the cost of installing the basic living facilities in the sale price if the project operator directly supplies a housing site or a house, and is null and void. If another supplier supplies a housing site or a house through his/her arrangement, the project operator is exempted from the disbursement of the amount equivalent to the cost of installing the basic living facilities to be borne by the project operator without any legal cause. Accordingly, the project operator is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the same amount of the cost of the basic living facilities to the person subject to relocation measures.

However, as seen above, it is limited to basic living facilities as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act to provide a project operator with a relocation settlement site or housing site or housing as a relocation measure. Thus, in a case where a project operator provides a relocation settlement site as a relocation measure or specially supplies a housing site or housing site, the project operator may require a person subject to relocation measures to bear only the cost of the housing site and the cost of the construction of the housing site. The exceeding part shall be decided to the extent inconsistent with the Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da35783 Decided May 24, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 201Da67126 Decided March 15, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 201Da5778 Decided July 25, 2003; and other Supreme Court Decision 2001Da5778 Decided July 25, 2003.

Therefore, the court below should order the defendant to return only the amount equivalent to the cost of the basic living facilities out of the sale price to the defendant as unjust enrichment in case of the persons who paid the sale price including the cost of the basic living facilities among the plaintiffs who purchased the housing from the defendant who purchased the housing from the defendant who is a project operator in accordance with the above legal principles. In case of the persons who have not yet paid the sale price, it should have confirmed that their obligation to purchase the housing price does not exceed the amount calculated by deducting the cost of the basic living facilities from the sale price. However, the court below, on the premise that if the housing site or the housing was supplied to the persons subject to the relocation measures for special supply, only the cost invested by the project operator can be borne by the persons subject to the relocation measures, under the premise that the sale price of each apartment of this case can be borne by the project operator. Accordingly, the court below accepted the plaintiffs' claim for the return of unjust enrichment of this case or the claim for confirmation of the absence of the obligation to purchase the construction cost.

2. The defendant's supplementary intervenor's legitimacy is examined.

In order to intervene in a specific litigation case in order to assist one of the parties, there must be an interest in the result of the pertinent litigation, and the term "interest" refers to legal interest, not in fact, economic or emotional interests, but in legal interests (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da51714, Dec. 26, 1997; 2007Da16885, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s motion, the Defendant’s Intervenor, like the Defendant, supplied apartment houses constructed in the housing site development project zone in lieu of creating and supplying new settlement sites for the purpose of persons subject to relocation measures that occurred from public projects implemented by Seoul Special Metropolitan City or its affiliated autonomous Gu, as well as the Defendant’s housing site development project, pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Act, etc. In addition, the Defendant’s motion for intervention is affected if the Plaintiffs’ motion for intervention is accepted. However, the aforementioned circumstance is merely a de facto and economic interest and cannot be deemed as a legal interest in the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the instant motion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without any need to determine the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the instant case is dismissed, and the litigation cost incurred from the application to intervene is assessed against the Defendant Intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Justice Kim Nung-hwan, Justice Yang Chang-soo, Justice Shin Young-chul, and Justice Min Il-young, the establishment and scope of unjust enrichment was decided upon by the assent of all participating Justices.

4. Concurrence by Justice Kim Nung-hwan

A. The majority opinion is that the contents of relocation measures include the basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities in the resettlement area, and the cost necessary therefor shall be borne by the project operator. The provisions of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act apply to the special supply of housing in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, the basic living facilities should be installed and supplied to the person subject to relocation measures. Nevertheless, if the person subject to relocation measures bears the cost of installation of the basic living facilities, the project operator must return the amount equivalent to the cost of installation as unjust enrichment. However, the majority opinion does not agree with the majority opinion that the basic living facilities refer to the arterial facilities such as roads, water supply and drainage facilities, electric facilities, communications facilities, gas facilities, and district heating facilities as stipulated in Article 23 of the Housing Act

B. Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act provides that the relocation measures shall include the basic living facilities in the resettlement area, and did not mention the specific contents of the basic living facilities. Article 78(4) and (8) of the former Public Works Act, amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007, limits the scope of the basic living facilities to the “ordinary level of basic living facilities”. Based on this provision, Article 41-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, amended by Presidential Decree No. 20771 of Apr. 17, 2008, limits the scope of the basic living facilities to “road, waterworks, sewerage, electrical facilities, telecommunications facilities, and gas facilities” but there is no room to examine the purport of the above provision in this case where the apartment sales contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was concluded on Jun. 28, 2004.

C. The compensation for loss under public law is sufficient to compensate for the objective value of the pertinent subject matter as the so-called physical compensation, but it is consistent with the ideology of guaranteeing fundamental rights to life under the Constitution to restore the previous living conditions to the migrants who lose their base of livelihood due to the provision of land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public projects, and at the same time guarantee their lives worthy of human dignity. The provisions on the measures for relocation of residents under Article 78 of the former Public Works Act are legislated in this purport. The reason why this provision is deemed a mandatory provision is also the same.

However, as the majority opinion states, limiting the basic living facilities stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act to so-called “arterial facilities” stipulated in Article 23 of the Housing Act is likely to be contrary to the legislative intent of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act. The reasons are as follows.

Article 24(4) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides that “A facility means a facility from a main facility outside a housing complex to the boundary of a housing complex in the case of roads, water supply and sewerage systems, electric facilities, telecommunications facilities, and gas facilities, to the boundary of a housing complex, and, in the case of a district heating facility, from the quarter of a heat pipeline outside a housing complex to the shut-off valve at the entrance of a mechanical room in a housing complex.” However, Article 23 of the Housing Act provides that, in principle, costs of installing such arterial facilities shall be borne by a local government or a person who supplies electricity, telecommunications, gas, and heating to the relevant district, i.e., the person who is responsible for installation. As such, the said provisions are based on the entire housing complex, and therefore, it is not intended to distinguish the general buyers who are supplied with the housing from the person eligible for relocation measures. Nevertheless, if it is deemed that the basic living facilities referred to in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act mean the above “art

Considering the above, even though the "basic facilities for living" under Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act means "arterial facilities" under Article 23 of the Housing Act as stated in the Majority Opinion with respect to its item, the scope of the "arterial facilities" shall be construed as including not only the boundary of a housing complex from facilities outside a housing complex to the boundary of a housing complex, but also the installation cost of a house supplied to a person subject to relocation measures from the boundary of a housing complex. It is interpreted that the person subject to relocation measures cannot bear relocation measures, and that the profit included in a housing sale price cannot be borne by a person subject to relocation measures is also consistent with the purport of Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act. Ultimately, the person subject to relocation measures should be construed as having only the cost of building a housing site and the cost of building a house, excluding the cost of installing a basic living facilities within the meaning mentioned above. The Supreme Court decisions that the majority opinion is modified shall be justified and maintained as they are.

D. The judgment of the court below is justifiable on the premise of the above legal principles. However, since most of the cost of installing basic living facilities is included in housing site preparation cost and building cost, it is reasonable to view that the fair sale price of the housing is the price calculated by aggregating the housing site possession cost, the cost of building housing sites deducting the installation cost of basic living facilities as seen above, and the cost of building the housing site. However, the court below, without calculating the corresponding cost specifically, determined that the amount equivalent to 35% of the building cost of the apartment of this case is the cost of building the apartment of this case, and the remainder calculated by deducting the amount is the cost of building the basic living facilities for the apartment of this case, and is the legitimate sale price of the apartment of this case under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works

5. Concurrence by Justice Yang Chang-soo, Justice Shin Young-chul, and Justice Min Il-young

A. The Majority Opinion argues that a project operator should provide basic living facilities according to the relevant local conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities at his/her own expense because Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act applies to a project operator who specially supplies a housing site or a house to a person subject to relocation measures, but it cannot be agreed on the following grounds:

B. The main text of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act provides that “The details of the relocation measures shall include basic living facilities according to the relevant local conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities, in the resettlement area, and the cost necessary therefor shall be borne by the project operator.” This is limited to the case where the project operator must install the above basic living facilities at his/her own expense, providing the resettlement area as

Furthermore, the proviso of Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act (hereinafter “the proviso of the Enforcement Decree”) provides that a project operator shall be deemed to have established and implemented relocation measures if he/she supplies a housing site or a house specially. Therefore, in the case of a special supply in accordance with the main sentence of the same paragraph and the proviso of the same proviso, the special supply of a housing site or a house that requires relocation measures shall be interpreted as having no further need for relocation measures.

Meanwhile, the proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Loss (Presidential Decree No. 12609) was first stipulated as the proviso of Article 5(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss (Presidential Decree No. 12609) revised on May 22, 1992, which included cases of special supply through referral of a project operator. The proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Loss (Presidential Decree No. 13649) which deals with the special supply of land differently from the provision of the land for relocation. The reason why the special supply of land for relocation is dealt with differently from the provision of the land for relocation plan under the proviso of the former Enforcement Decree. However, the special supply is ordinarily included in the supply of land for public use, convenience facilities, and housing, and thus, it is recognized that the basic residential facilities are more rational than the previous residential facilities to be supplied by the project operator's or basic residential facilities.

In addition, since the sale price of housing sites or housing units supplied specially at the time of the first introduction of the proviso to the Enforcement Decree is remarkably lower than the sale price ceiling system, the person subject to relocation measures can be granted special supply of housing sites, etc., so that the person subject to relocation measures can be guaranteed a considerable amount of gains from the special supply of housing sites, etc., and thereby, the general buyers preference to the supply of housing sites, etc., and the general buyers should undergo higher competition in order to purchase housing sites or housing units that are subject to special supply. However, the person subject to relocation measures is entitled to purchase housing units without such competition, and thus, the person subject to special supply would be given considerable preference compared to the general buyers.

Therefore, even if a housing site or a house that is specially supplied to a person subject to relocation measures is supplied as a sale price, including the cost of establishing basic facilities, it cannot be said that the previous living condition is restored to the original state and at the same time, it goes against the institutional intent of the relocation measures that guarantees a life worthy of human dignity. Even if the sale price has considerably increased differently from the past at the time of each sale contract in this case, it does not seem to have reached

Therefore, if a project operator specially supplies a housing site or a house to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to the proviso to the Enforcement Decree, it shall be deemed that the project operator established and implemented relocation measures, and it shall not establish and implement a separate relocation measures. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the project operator has no duty to install a basic living facility on the premise that the housing site or house specially supplied is

C. Nevertheless, the court below accepted all the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant on the premise that Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act stipulating the project implementer's duty to install basic living facilities applies to the case where each apartment building of this case is specially supplied to the plaintiffs for the reasons stated in its holding. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the main body to bear the cost of establishing basic living facilities where the housing site or house is specially supplied to the person subject to the relocation measures. The part of the ground for appeal

D. For the foregoing reasons, I agree with the Majority’s conclusion, but agree with the Majority’s reasoning, and express my separate opinion.

[Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

[Attachment 2] List of Intervenor succeeding to Plaintiff: omitted

Chief Justice Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)