Attached 1 List of Plaintiffs (Attorney Soh Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

E. E.S. (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Lee Jae-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

February 26, 2016

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap48492 Decided February 14, 2013

1. The judgments of the first instance court, including the expansion of claims and the filing of lawsuits in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendant shall pay to the rest of the Plaintiffs, other than Plaintiffs 22 and 26, excluding the amount indicated in the corresponding “amount of discount” in the attached Form 5, as well as 5% per annum from November 27, 2012 to April 1, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs 22 and 26's claims and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the total litigation costs, the portion arising between Plaintiffs 22 and 26 and the Defendant is borne by both Plaintiffs 22 and 26, and the portion arising between Plaintiffs 6, 18, and 20 and the Defendant is borne by both Plaintiffs 6, 18, and 20, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively. The remainder arising between Plaintiffs 22, 26, 6, 18, and 20 and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to each of the corresponding amounts stated in the attached Form 4/Appeal Schedule "amount of Claim" and the amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from the delivery date of the copy of the claim and the ground for the amendment to the claim of this case on November 27, 2012 to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff extended its claim to the court of first instance).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs: The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs falling under the following part of the order to pay is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to each of the amounts stated in the attached Table 4 / Appeal Fees Schedule, and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the corresponding day to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant: All of the judgment of the first instance court against the Defendant is revoked, and the Plaintiffs’ claims corresponding to the revoked portion are dismissed.

1. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

2. Basic facts

A. In accordance with Article 204-58 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice on February 25, 2004, the development plan was designated as an urban development zone under the Urban Development Act (title: Pyeongtaek New Airport Development Zone; hereinafter “instant development zone”) and was approved on February 25, 2004. The Defendant was designated as an implementer of the project of the Eunpyeong New Town Urban Development Project (hereinafter “instant development zone”) under the said development plan.

B. The date when the resident public inspection was published to designate the above 3,495,248 square meters as the development zone of this case (hereinafter “the date of the public inspection of this case”) is January 15, 2004 (hereinafter “the date of public inspection”).

C. On October 19, 2004, the Defendant publicly announced the relocation measures concerning the instant project, and among which the contents relating to the instant case are as follows.

[Public Notice of Relocation Measures for the Development Zone]

○ Base Date for Relocation Measures: November 20, 2002 (or August 20, 2002 for a single tenant: August 20, 2002)

○ Residential Measures

(2) An apartment house with an area for exclusive use within the project zone shall be supplied to a person who has owned a house on his/her own land from 10 days before the base date to 10 days before the conclusion date of a contract for consultation or the date of expropriation: Provided, That an apartment house with an area for exclusive use within 85 square meters shall be supplied to a person who has voluntarily transferred the house in the project zone: Provided, That an apartment house with an area for exclusive use within 85 square meters shall be supplied to a person who meets the requirements of paragraph (1) and whose household members as of the base date are no longer than 85 square meters within the project zone from the base date to the date of public announcement of a compensation plan shall apply mutatis mutandis. ① The owner of an unregistered building without permission who has owned an unauthorized building registered as a residence within the project zone from 90 days before the base date to the date of conclusion of a contract for expropriation or lease of an apartment house with an area for exclusive use within the project zone from 19 days before the date of voluntary consultation.

D. According to the progress of the instant project, the Defendant publicly announced the compensation plan on the date indicated in the column of the public announcement of the “public announcement of the compensation plan” by each district of the instant development zone as shown below.

The land is incorporated into the instant development zone pursuant to Article 207-377 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice of October 18, 2007 as of October 18, 2007, among the 3-1 district of March 29, 2005 and 3-2 district of February 15, 2006, 2003-2 district of February 3-2 district of February 30, 2005.

E. On January 10, 2008, the Defendant, as a part of the relocation measures against those who lose their means of livelihood due to the expropriation of their own housing or land in the instant development zone, intended to specially supply apartment buildings to be developed within the instant development zone (hereinafter “instant apartment buildings”) as part of the relocation measures against those who lose their means of livelihood due to the expropriation of the said housing or land, etc., and announced the public on the special supply contract guidance for Eunpyeong New Town apartment. The sale price for the said special supply was determined as the same amount as the sale price for the apartment to be sold in general.

F. The rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1's litigant 1's co-ownership share area of the co-ownership site (hereinafter "share area of the co-ownership site of this case") was entered into a sales contract with the defendant on the date stated in the "sale contract date" column of the attached Table 3 of the sale statement of this case, with each of the "sale price" column as stated in the attached Table 3 of the same Table (hereinafter "sale contract of this case"). The remaining plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the non-party 1's spouse of the non-party 1's co-ownership share area of the co-ownership site of the household that acquired through the sale contract of this case (hereinafter "the co-ownership share area of this case") is as stated in the "share of the co-ownership site" column as stated in the attached Table 3 of the same Table. On the other hand, the sale contract of this case mentioned in No. 14 in the attached Table 3 was concluded by the original non-party 1 and the non-party 1's spouse of the lawsuit are the non-party 1's spouse.

G. Meanwhile, on June 30, 2010, Plaintiff 10 transferred to Nonparty 2, Plaintiff 26 transferred (sale) the rights and obligations under the instant sales contract to Nonparty 3 on March 20, 209, and the Defendant also approved the said transfer. In addition, Plaintiff 6 transferred to Nonparty 4, the wife on December 28, 2010, Plaintiff 16 to Nonparty 5, the wife on January 20, 201, Plaintiff 18 to Nonparty 7, the wife on September 7, 2010, and Plaintiff 20 to Nonparty 6, the wife on March 10, 2010, and the Defendant also approved the said transfer.

H. Accordingly, the rest of the plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 10 and 26 (the plaintiff 6 and the plaintiff 16; the plaintiff 5 and the plaintiff 18; the plaintiff 7 and the plaintiff 20 jointly with the non-party 6); the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 respectively corresponding to the "final payment date" in the attached Table 3 attached hereto was paid in full as of the date indicated.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 35 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 45, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Occurrence of claim for return of unjust enrichment;

(a) Relevant legal principles;

In full view of Article 78(1) and the main text of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act and Article 40(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act, the project operator’s provision of housing sites or houses (hereinafter “special supply”) to persons 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 taking relocation measures that can be selected by the project operator based on the delegation of Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act. As for special supply, it is reasonable to view that the former Public Works Act provides a person subject to relocation measures at the cost of the project operator to install basic living facilities as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act and provide the person subject to relocation measures at the expense of the project operator for the purpose of promoting the promotion of public welfare and the appropriate protection of property rights through the efficient implementation of the public work project. The relocation measures under the former Public Works Act also provide for the person subject to relocation measures to lose the basis of land necessary for the implementation of the public project.

Therefore, if a person subject to relocation measures was to pay the project operator, etc. the cost of the basic living facilities as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act by including the cost of the basic living facilities as the sale price in a housing site or housing supply contract entered into between a person subject to relocation measures and a project operator or a supplier under his/her arrangement, and thus the person subject to relocation measures was to pay the cost of the basic living facilities up to the cost of the installation of the basic living facilities, the special supply contract is null and void in violation of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which is a mandatory law, if the project operator directly supplies a housing site or a house. 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 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 to the person subject to relocation measures as unjust enrichment (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63096, Jun. 23, 2011).

B. Whether the plaintiffs are subject to relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 23 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same), Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act, and Article 40(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, a project operator shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds to a person subject to relocation measures, as prescribed by the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, but the owner of a building who does not continuously reside in the relevant building from the "date of public notice, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public projects" to the "date of public notice, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public projects"

In a case where the relevant law that requires the application of the Public Works Act to the procedures for the expropriation of land is scheduled for the public inspection of residents, etc. in addition to the public announcement of project approval, the “date of public announcement, etc. under the relevant law for the public project” which serves as the basis for the relocation measures may include not only the date of public announcement of project approval, but also the date of public announcement (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13340, Feb. 26, 2009). However, the standard for determining whether a person is eligible for relocation measures as prescribed by the law should be individually specified in the relevant law based on each public project’s applicable law. Since the application of the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Relocation Measures, etc. of Residents, which is a mandatory provision, should be consistent, it is reasonable to interpret it as one of the legal base dates for relocation measures under each individual law. If a project operator can choose one or more different from the two or more different provisions, it would cause confusion and undermine

In addition to these circumstances, in full view of the procedures for the progress of public works under the Urban Development Act and the policy needs to prevent speculative transactions following the implementation of such projects, it is reasonable to deem that the statutory base date for relocation measures falling under the “date on which public notice, etc. is made under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public works” in an urban development project is the public announcement of the designation of an urban development zone under Article 7 of the former Urban Development Act and Article 9-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act. Based on this, it is necessary to determine whether a person is a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to the main sentence of Article 40(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, and Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which requires a project operator to install basic facilities and bear the expenses for such relocation measures, shall not be deemed to have been applied to a person subject to mutually beneficial relocation measures (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da14672, Jul. 23, 2015).

2) In the instant case:

In this case, the "date of public announcement, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public works" referred to in Article 40 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act shall be deemed to be January 15, 2004, which is the date of public announcement of residents' public inspection to designate the zone as an urban development zone (hereinafter "date of public inspection") and those selected as a beneficiary of mutually beneficial relocation measures by the defendant, namely, those who owned a building within the project district of this case or an unauthorized building constructed before January 24, 1989 within the project district of this case as of the date of public inspection announcement, but who did not reside therein, shall not be deemed to be the subject of relocation measures for which the defendant is responsible for the installation of basic living facilities.

Accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs, plaintiffs 22, and 26 had owned a building or an unauthorized building constructed before January 24, 1989 within the project district of this case since the date of public inspection and announcement, and had resided therein, and there is no circumstance to deem that the above plaintiffs constitute grounds for exclusion under Article 40 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act. Thus, the above plaintiffs constitute those subject to relocation measures under Article 78 (1) of the former Public Works Act.

On the other hand, according to the evidence Nos. 3-2, 10, 44, Plaintiff 22 donated a building located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) in the instant project district from Nonparty Park 25, 2005 and completed the transfer of ownership on the same day after completing the transfer of ownership, and Plaintiff 26 owned an unauthorized building located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) in the instant project district, and completed the move-in report to the above address on March 16, 2005, it is recognized that Plaintiff 22 and Plaintiff 26 did not have any evidence to recognize that the said Plaintiffs actually resided in each of the above buildings prior to the date of the public inspection announcement. Accordingly, Plaintiff 22 and Plaintiff 26 cannot be deemed to have met the requirements for the relocation measures under the former Public Works Act and subordinate statutes, and thus, Plaintiff 22 and Plaintiff 26’s claims are not justifiable without any further need to be examined.

C. The defendant's duty to return unjust enrichment

According to the above facts, the rest of the plaintiffs except plaintiffs 22 and 26 are those who lose their base of livelihood due to the provision of residential buildings due to the implementation of the project in this case executed by the defendant and are subject to relocation measures (hereinafter the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs 22 and 26 referred to as "the plaintiffs subject to relocation measures"). Furthermore, the fact that the sale price of each of the sales contracts in this case is the same as the sale price of the general sale contract in this case as the sale price of each of the sales contracts in this case, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the sale price of each of the sales contracts in this case is excluded from the cost of basic living facilities installation as stipulated in Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act, the sale price of each of the sales contracts in this case includes the cost of basic living facilities installation as stipulated in Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act. Therefore, the defendant is obligated

D. Whether Plaintiffs 10, 6, 16, 18, and 20 lost their claim for return of unjust enrichment by transferring their status under each of the instant sales contract

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment arising from the sales contract of this case is transferred to a third party when the status of the buyer is transferred to the third party. Thus, the defendant asserts that the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment by the plaintiff 10, 6, 16, 18, and 20 that the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment by the plaintiff 10, 6, 16, 18, and 20 that all or part of the right

2) Determination

A) Determination as to Plaintiff 10

The fact that Plaintiff 10 transferred the status of the buyer on June 30, 2010 to Nonparty 2 and the Defendant approved the transfer is the same as the above fact. However, according to the evidence No. 23, it can be acknowledged that Plaintiff 10 transferred the status of the buyer on the sales contract to Plaintiff 10 and Nonparty 2 again transferred the claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case to Plaintiff 10 on December 13, 2012, and written the notice of transfer. The fact that Plaintiff 10 delivered the notice of transfer to the Defendant through the delivery of the written request for modification of the purport of the claim and its cause as of December 18, 2012 by Plaintiff 10 is apparent in the record. Thus, the above argument of the Defendant is without merit, and Plaintiff 10 may exercise the above claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant.

B) Determination on Plaintiffs 6, 16, 18, and 20

(1) In a case where one of the parties to a contract comprehensively transfers his/her position as a party to a contract with the consent of the other party, the third party who has taken over the status as a party to the contract succeeds to the transferor’s contractual status, thereby having all the claims and obligations already incurred under the previous contract transferred (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63089, 63096, Jun. 23, 2011).

Plaintiff 6, on December 28, 2010, to Nonparty 4, Plaintiff 16, to Nonparty 5 on January 20, 201, to Plaintiff 18, to Nonparty 7 on September 7, 2010, to Plaintiff 20, to Nonparty 6 of the spouse on March 10, 2010, and to Plaintiff 20 to Nonparty 6 on March 10, 201, and to Defendant 50% of the shares of the buyer under each of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “the other party’s spouse”) as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that in principle, the above Plaintiffs comprehensively transferred to the other party 50% of the shares in the status of the buyer under each of the instant sales contract, and with the Defendant’s approval, even the amount equivalent to 50% of the unjust enrichment arising in relation to each of the instant sales contracts. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the part of each of the above Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment cannot be claimed against the other party.

(2) On this ground, the above plaintiffs asserted that since they may claim for unjust enrichment in relation to each sales contract of this case, since they acquired claims equivalent to 50% of the unjust enrichment of this case from each other again, they may claim for unjust enrichment in relation to each sales contract of this case. According to the evidence Nos. 32 through 35, the above plaintiffs' claims equivalent to 50% of the unjust enrichment occurred from each other in relation to the sales contract of this case are re-acquisitioned from each other, and are delegated with the authority to notify the transfer (hereinafter "the right to notify the transfer of unjust enrichment claim") and are notified of the transfer of claims through the delivery of the preparatory document dated January 14, 2016.

(3) As to this, the defendant asserts that the other plaintiffs (i.e., plaintiffs 6, 18, and 20) except the plaintiff 16 among the above plaintiffs (i.e., plaintiffs 6, 18, and 20) received from each other, the above plaintiffs and the other party's claim for the return of unjust enrichment that they received from each other were extinguished after the lapse of five years from

The obligor may set up against the assignee for the cause that occurred to the transferor until he/she receives the notification of the transfer (Article 451(2) of the Civil Act), and Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall apply or apply mutatis mutandis to claims corresponding thereto, as well as claims arising from commercial activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da64957, Apr. 8, 2003; 2013Da214871, Jul. 24, 2014).

The claim for return of unjust enrichment that Plaintiff 6, 18, and 20 acquired from each other is based on the sales contract of this case concluded by the Defendant for each of the parties to commercial activities, and is fundamentally accrued from the sales contract corresponding to commercial activities. The Defendant concluded a multiple sales contract with the party subject to relocation measures, but became invalid partly within the extent that the sales contract exceeds the reasonable sales price under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which is mandatory provisions, and there is a need for prompt resolution of transactional relationship. In addition, the claim for return of unjust enrichment that the above Plaintiffs acquired from each other is 64 of the above parties and 10 of the sales contract of this case. It is reasonable to view that the prescription period for the claim for return of unjust enrichment that the Plaintiff acquired from each of the parties to transfer from 15 of the above parties has expired since Article 68 of the Commercial Act was applied to the Plaintiff 10 and 20 of the sales contract of this case (the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment that the Defendant received from the other party to transfer 16.

In other words, Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 18, and Plaintiff 20 asserts that the ten-year statute of limitations should apply to the claim for damages arising from tort. However, even if the Defendant provided housing within the pertinent project district prior to the issuance of the en banc Decision en banc Decision 2007Da63089, 63096 Decided June 23, 201, supra, it is difficult to conclude that the project implementer was aware of the fact that the Defendant had to bear the cost of installing basic living facilities even in the case of supplying housing within the said project district, such as the apartment of this case, to the person subject to relocation measures by intention or negligence, the Defendant cannot be said to have borne the cost of installing basic living facilities by each of the aforementioned Plaintiffs and the persons who acquired their status as the person subject to relocation measures, and thus, it cannot be deemed a tort.

4. Scope of return of unjust gains;

(a) Methods of calculating unjust enrichment and basic data;

1) Relevant legal principles

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. 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 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, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63089, 63096, Jun. 23, 2011, etc.).

2) Method of calculating unjust enrichment

In the case of special supply of housing, such as the instant sales contract, it is reasonable to view that the apartment construction business entity or the project implementer supplied housing sites at the price for which the cost of the basic living facilities is not deducted and sold as it is, and that the sales price paid by the Plaintiffs subject to the relocation measures includes “the cost of the basic living facilities” in the sales price paid by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the total cost of the basic living facilities in question is the unjust enrichment that the Defendant should return to the Plaintiffs

The above unjust enrichment amount can be calculated by the formula of "the cost of cost supply area" among the total site area of the project in the instant project district. The cost of cost of cost of cost for basic living facilities in the instant formula would be the sum of ① cost of cost of cost for basic living facilities (total cost 】 (total cost of site 】 (the installation area of basic living facilities / total site area)) and ② cost of cost of cost for basic living facilities, ③ direct cost of cost for basic living facilities, ③ cost of direct labor cost for basic living facilities, sales management cost, general management cost, capital cost, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "direct labor cost, etc. for basic living facilities").

(iii)basic data for calculation (total project costs and areas subject to commercial supply);

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 11 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the entire site area of the instant project district is 3,492,421 square meters. Among them, 1,873,463 square meters is an area of paid supply, and the total project cost related to the creation of the housing site among the instant projects (hereinafter "total project cost of this case") can be acknowledged as follows.

3,835,630,315,962 development cost 492,356,786,482 direct personnel expenses 10,028,713,448 relocation measures cost 32,323,092,482, sales cost and general management cost 49,384,829,665 capital cost 655,461,640,260,260, total project cost 5,075,184,78,2999

B. Costs of installing basic living facilities of the project in this case

(a) Costs of sites for basic facilities;

In full view of the written statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 11, Eul evidence Nos. 11, 12, 23, and 24, the facts that the area of a site where basic living facilities are installed in the project district of this case is 475,695 square meters on roads. Accordingly, the cost of a site for basic living facilities is 522,442,787,725 won (3,835,630,630,6315,962 won x 475,695 square meters on total site area / total site area / total site area / total site area / total site area 1), 492,421 square meters, hereinafter the same shall apply).

(ii) cost of creating basic living facilities;

The facts that the cost of creating the basic living facilities of the project of this case is a total of 151,535,378,585 are as follows, and there is no dispute between the parties, or evidence Nos. 13, No. 11, No. 13, No. 14, 16, 18, and 19 may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings.

The expenses for items (source) of the preceding section contained in the main sentence of the Act, 193,00,000,000,000,000,000 sewage treatment charges for sewage treatment charges of 3,015,000,000,000,00 for electrical construction charges of 32,493,31,633,633 telecommunications construction charges of 3,474,926,322 gas contributions,65,657,11,50 in total,151,535,378,58585,585,000 of the construction expenses for electricity treatment charges of 32,493,31,633 telecommunications construction charges of 3,474,926,322,00

(iii) direct personnel expenses, etc. for the basic living facilities;

(a) direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, or general management expenses;

In addition to the purport of the whole argument in Eul evidence 5, the direct personnel expenses out of the project expenses in this case shall be multiplied by 0.23% of the total amount of site expenses, creation expenses, and relocation measures expenses determined by the defendant, and the sales expenses and general management expenses shall be recognized by multiplying the total amount of site expenses, creation expenses, direct personnel expenses, and relocation measures expenses by 1.13% of the sales expenses and general management expenses determined by the defendant. Of the project expenses in this case, the direct personnel expenses, i.e., the site expenses and creation expenses for the living facilities under the former Public Works Act, which are appropriated as those paid by the defendant by multiplying the site expenses and creation expenses for the living facilities in this case by the above specific ratio as above, shall be included in the installation expenses for the living facilities that the defendant has paid

Therefore, the facts that the cost of the site for the basic living facilities pertaining to the instant project is 52,42,787,725 won, and the cost of creating the basic living facilities is 151,535,378,585 won as seen earlier. Therefore, the direct labor cost related to the cost of installing the basic living facilities is 1,550,149,783 won [=673,978,166,310 won + (=42,42,787,725 won for the cost of creating the basic living facilities + 151,537,378,585 won for the cost of creating the basic living facilities + 0.23%]; the sales cost and general management cost are 7,63,469,972 won = 675,528,316,093 won + the cost of creating the basic living facilities + 252,475,751,757,7575

(b)capital costs;

In addition to the statement in Eul evidence No. 5 of this case, capital costs in the total cost of this case shall be calculated by multiplying the amount of expenditure by land cost, creation cost, and relocation measure cost by 4.63% until the completion of the project in this case. Of the total cost of this case, 4,360,310,194,926 won (=3,835,630,630,6315,962 won + creation cost + 492,32,323,092,482 won + creation cost of 492,32,323,092,482 won). However, since the total cost of capital costs can not be known of each disbursement day of the basic cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of living facilities, the total cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of cost of creation of basic capital and basic cost of total cost of cost of cost of living facilities shall be directly calculated according to the total total amount of cost of cost of cost of cost of living facilities.

Therefore, when calculating capital costs related to the cost of installing basic living facilities among the total capital cost of the instant project, 101,315,367,543 [10 won = Total capital cost = 655,461,040,260 x [673,978,166,310 won for site and creation cost of basic living facilities + KRW 522,442,787,725 for basic living facilities + cost of creating basic living facilities + KRW 151,535,378,585 for the cost of creating basic living facilities]; total land cost; cost of creating basic living facilities; cost of relocation measures; cost of relocation measures; amount of KRW 4,360,194,926];

C) Total

Therefore, direct personnel expenses, etc. for basic living facilities are 110,498,98,298,298 won (=150,149,783 won + 7,6315,367,543 won + 101,49,63,469,972 won + 101,315,367,543 won (i.e., 1,550,149,783 won).

C. Expenses incurred in installing basic living facilities per one square meter of each site area of the instant case and unjust enrichment;

1) The cost of establishing the basic living facilities of the instant project is ① KRW 522,442,787,725; ② the cost of creating the basic living facilities; ② KRW 151,535,378,585; ③ the cost of establishing the basic living facilities; ③ KRW 110,498,98,987,153,608, including the direct labor cost for the basic living facilities (i.e., KRW 522,442,787,787,725 + + KRW 151,535,378,585 + KRW 110,498,987,2987,298). As seen earlier, the cost of installing the basic living facilities of KRW 151,873,463 square meters per total area of the instant project site is KRW 418,783,747,784,763,784,75,7637,7

2) Therefore, the amount of unjust enrichment by the Plaintiff subject to the relocation measures is the corresponding amount indicated in the column for “the cost of installing basic living facilities” in the attached Form 5 multiplied by the amount of 418,731 won in the share of each co-owned site of this case multiplied by the cost of installing basic living facilities per square meter of the same case (only as seen earlier, Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 18, and Plaintiff 20 have the right to claim only 50% of them).

D. Determination of the defendant's assertion on the calculation of land costs for basic living facilities

(i)the area of free acquisition;

The defendant asserts that since the land was gratuitously reverted to the defendant in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to the 475,695 square meters of road 475,695 square meters in the project district of this case, this part was not included in the land cost, it should be excluded from the area where basic living facilities are installed, and only the area which is gratuitously reverted shall be considered, excluding the area which is gratuitously reverted when calculating the site cost required for the construction of roads.

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 33-2 through 6, No. 34-1, and No. 34-2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is acknowledged to have acquired, as public facilities, the land category in the instant project district is “road” and the actual status of use is 283,198 square meters in total, regardless of the part of the road and land category, the actual status of use is a road. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had acquired the entire area of a road within 258 square meters in the instant development zone without compensation, based on the following facts: (a) there is no evidence to verify whether the cost of housing site creation, which was the basis for the determination of the sale price, was the size of the road acquired without compensation, around September 18, 2007; (b) No. 25-3 of the evidence No. 25, Sep. 18, 2007; and (c) the overall purport of the pleading as indicated in the evidence No. 25-298,2842.

However, according to the above evidence and evidence evidence Nos. 11, 12, 27, 33 and 35, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the whole purport of pleadings, the sales contract was concluded on the premise that the entire average site cost of the project district of this case was paid to the area of the road which is gratuitously reverted to the defendant between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the part equivalent to the site cost of this case equivalent to the area gratuitously reverted is excluded from the sales price of this case. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit (in the same purport, the defendant's assertion that, instead of the basic site cost calculation formula, the area excluding the area of the road to be gratuitously reverted, and the area should be calculated as a substitute for the area of the site in which the actual site cost was

A) The reason why the Defendant is obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of the cost of the basic living facilities installed in the project district of this case to the Plaintiffs subject to the relocation measures is that the part that reflecteds the cost of the basic living facilities among the sale price of each of the sales contracts of this case is invalid, and there is no legal ground to hold the sale price equivalent to the invalid part. In principle, in calculating the cost of the basic living facilities to be returned by the Defendant, the method that reflects the cost of the basic living facilities when calculating the sale price

B) In calculating the development cost of the instant project district, the Defendant assessed the total site cost of KRW 3,835,630,315,962 on the entire site area of the project district as KRW 3,835,630,315,962. The total site cost assessed by the Defendant included KRW 244,887,024,326 in the total site cost assessed by the Defendant. The Defendant did not exclude the land reverted without compensation, including KRW 283,198 square meters from the area subject to the calculation of the site cost, and without considering the difference in the acquisition cost of individual land, reflected the total site cost for the entire site area of the instant project district in the development cost, without changing the site cost from individual land, and reflected the entire site cost of the instant project district in the same amount. Considering this, as seen earlier, the total site cost for living facilities in this case was calculated as the total site amount compared to the total site area of the building site area.

C) On December 5, 2007, the Defendant announced the apartment site “development cost and explanatory materials for selling prices” within the instant development zone. The explanatory materials also indicate that the total site price for the entire site area of the instant development zone is KRW 3,835,630,630,6315,962, and the site price for one square meter of 1,873,463 square meter of the paid supply area is KRW 2,047,348, and there is no land that has been reverted without compensation, including road 283,198 square meters, from the project area subject to the calculation of site costs. The Defendant determined the sale price in this case based on the development cost calculated by the externally published method, and received the sale price after concluding the sales contract between the Plaintiffs.

D) An urban development project, such as the instant project, is first acquired by a project implementer by purchasing or expropriating existing land, buildings, etc. within the project district, and the entire land within the project district is developed in accordance with the development plan regardless of the current status of use of existing land, and a building is constructed in accordance with such development plan. For example, when a project implementer develops a land of 100 square meters, 50 square meters used as rice shall be acquired as one million won and 50 square meters shall be free of charge. If, as seen earlier, 30 square meters of land among the above 100 square meters of land, 70 square meters of land is constructed as a housing site and the remainder of 70 square meters of land is newly acquired as a whole, regardless of the current status of use of existing land, the said project implementer is deemed to have used 30 million square meters of land to acquire the remainder of the land equivalent to 30 million square meters of land for the construction of a housing site without compensation, and thus, is deemed to have been used for the construction of a housing site in the remaining part of 700 million won.

Ultimately, even if some gratuitous acquisition exists in the acquisition of existing land, it would be reasonable and realistic method of calculating the acquisition cost of newly developed land by dividing the total acquisition cost of the entire land in the area of the entire land.

In this case, if the Defendant did not reflect the price of the land gratuitously reverted to the development cost but reflected only the price of the land gratuitously acquired on the total site cost (it is natural that the price of the land gratuitously acquired is not reflected in the development cost, since the development cost is based on the actual cost, and the price of the land gratuitously acquired is not reflected in the development cost). If the Defendant reflected the above total site cost in the development cost as the acquisition price of the entire area of the project district of this case, and then determined the basic housing site cost and sale price, it is reasonable to deem the above total site cost as the site cost for acquiring the entire area of the project district of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the logic that the above total site cost was merely the cost for acquiring the land corresponding to the part of the "after development" and the land corresponding to the area of the basic housing facilities other than the area of the land acquired without compensation, and the part corresponding to the area of the basic housing facilities installed after development is also a "road," and thus, the Defendant appears not to have claimed that the new part of the land was used for the development project.

E) The Defendant asserts that, without excluding the road area gratuitously reverted, only the purchase price for the portion of the road gratuitously reverted to the Plaintiffs, for which the benefits of the road, which is the public facilities, were considered for the previous assets, and the amount equivalent to the site cost for the portion of the road which is gratuitously reverted, shall be paid to the Plaintiffs, and that the benefits that accrue to the public interest shall be unfairly reverted to the Plaintiffs. However, since the Plaintiffs would have been able to use the road installed at king if there was no project in this case, such benefits should be naturally reflected in the compensation for the previous assets, and there is no reason for the installation cost of the road to be transferred to the Plaintiffs solely on the ground that the previous road was removed and newly constructed as the project in

(ii) the area of retained roads;

The defendant asserts that even if it does not exclude a road area which is gratuitously reverted, the above 283,198 square meters of the above 283,198 square meters of the previous road is a preserved site that has preserved the previous road as it is, at least, this part must be excluded from the installation area of basic living facilities and the total project area, and that the part should be excluded from the calculation of the site cost actually required for the construction of the road.

According to the video of the evidence B No. 23, the fact that the location and shape of the “before development” and the “after development” in the instant project district are 124,682 square meters in overlapping the location and shape of the road.

However, the retention site is a site preserved as it is recognized by a project implementer as not impeding the development project even if the project implementer did not relocate or remove existing buildings or other facilities located in the project district, and is excluded from the object of acquisition through consultation, expropriation, or gratuitous acquisition, and does not include the objects of gratuitous reversion for the installation of public facilities (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da85391, Jul. 9, 2015). As such, the project implementer refers to the area that is not substantially performing the project (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da85391, Jul. 9, 2015). ① The Defendant’s calculation data of the housing site development cost prepared around September 207, clearly stated the size of the relevant site as a school, social welfare facility, religious facility, and facility’s total 37,835 square meters as a retention site or retention facility, and the Defendant’s assertion that part of the site was newly acquired for the purpose of the development of the road, including the remaining part of the previous road to be developed, is difficult from the development site.

E. Sub-committee

The defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 27, 2012, the date when the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of the above plaintiffs was served on the defendant as of November 27, 2012, which is the date when the application for modification was served on the defendant as of November 27, 2012, which is the date when the decision was rendered, until April 1, 2016, to the plaintiffs who are eligible for relocation measures.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the remaining plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiffs 22 and 26 are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. The claims of plaintiffs 22 and 26 are dismissed as they are without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance, including the expansion of the purport of the claim and the proceedings in the trial, shall be modified as ordered by the court of first instance.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)

1) In principle, a total of 37,835 square meters (schools, social welfare facilities, religious facilities) included therein should be excluded. However, since the Plaintiffs calculated the cost of installing basic living facilities, including the cost of basic living facilities, which is disadvantageous to them, the cost of basic living facilities shall be calculated on the basis of the above area as claimed by the Plaintiffs.

2) The Defendant asserts that the portion of the state-owned and public land, the land category of which is a “road” and the actual use of which is a “road” regardless of its land category, was gratuitously acquired as a public facility the total of 283,198 square meters of which is a road.