The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the area of basic living facilities, a road which a project implementer is required to provide a person subject to relocation measures with basic living facilities as stipulated in subparagraph 8 of Article 2 of the Housing Act includes roads constituting arterial facilities, i.e., roads located outside the relevant housing complex, notwithstanding its length or width (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013); and a road which is installed within a public works zone by a project implementer and is in charge of connecting roads outside the relevant housing complex, etc. with the entrance of a housing complex, etc. within the relevant housing complex, and other roads located outside the relevant housing zone, barring any special circumstance, shall be included in the facilities essential for the achievement of functions of the housing complex, etc. within the housing complex and the passage of the entire residents (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da29509, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s “B housing site development project zone” is less than the basic living complex and the construction area of the road.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of basic living facilities and the calculation of the area.

2. The cost of creating the basic living facilities;