Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Plaintiff 2 and seven others (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Shin Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm New century, Attorneys Jeong Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 26, 2012

1. The defendant shall pay 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87 and 8 (Plaintiff 9) respectively to each of the 265,297 won and 265,297 won and 70% interest per annum from October 14, 201 to October 17, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to full payment date.

2. The remaining claims of Plaintiff (Appointed Party), Plaintiff 7 (Alternative Plaintiff 8), and Plaintiff 8 (Alternative Plaintiff 9) and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% is borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Plaintiffs, and 10% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the Plaintiffs, and the remaining designated parties the amount of money equivalent to the amount indicated in the “request amount” column in attached Table 2. The amount of money calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from October 14, 201 to October 27, 2011, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Korea National Housing Corporation (the Korea National Housing Corporation and the Korea Land Corporation were merged with the defendant on October 1, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) obtained approval of the housing site development plan for the housing site development project of Ulsan-gu ( Address 1 omitted) from the Do Governor of the Gyeongnam-do and on July 10, 1990, and obtained approval of the change of the housing site development plan and the implementation plan on July 29, 1994.

B. On the ground of the above land, the Defendant decided to construct and lease the 356-household Ulsan apartment, the public constructed rental house (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). On January 11, 1996, the following tenant recruitment notice was given, and around that time, the Defendant agreed to lease the apartment of this case to the Plaintiffs and the remaining designated parties for five years.

C. On July 2002, the Defendant issued a notice to the occupant of the instant apartment, including the Plaintiffs and the remaining designated parties, that the construction cost of the household corresponding to the 16th square meters of the instant apartment complex should be calculated as KRW 40,025,061, and the construction cost of the household corresponding to the 20th square meters should be calculated as KRW 49,626,42, respectively.

Accordingly, around October 2002, the plaintiffs and the remaining designated parties entered into a contract with the defendant for the purchase price of each apartment as stated in the "Dong and lake" column of attached Table 2 of the calculation sheet of the same calculation sheet among the apartment of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each sale contract of this case") or acquired the right to register the ownership of the relevant Dong and lake from the owners before filing the lawsuit of this case and the right to return unjust enrichment against the defendant in relation to the sale contract of the relevant Dong and lake.

D. The plaintiffs and the remaining designated parties paid all the above sales price to the defendant according to each sales contract of this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 110, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), fact-finding results against the other head of Ulsan Metropolitan City in Ulsan Metropolitan City in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) In calculating the pre-sale conversion price of the apartment of this case, the housing site cost should be calculated at 90% of the development cost according to the housing site supply price standard set forth in attached Table 3 of Article 14(1) of the Housing Site Development Business Guidelines (established on August 10, 1995). However, the Defendant calculated the pre-sale conversion price based on the housing site cost calculated at 10% of the development cost.

2) According to Article 21(1) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 656, Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”), Articles 13(3) and 9(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16910, Jul. 22, 2000; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act”), Article 3-3(1) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 253, Aug. 3, 2000; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act”), where a rental house is converted for sale, the pre-sale conversion price shall be the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and appraised value, and the pre-sale conversion price shall not exceed the amount calculated by subtracting the depreciation cost from the rental period calculated on the basis of construction cost and housing cost of the rental house (hereinafter “calculated price”).

After that, the Plaintiffs fully paid the sales price to the Defendant according to each of the instant sales contracts. Of each of the instant sales contracts, the part exceeding the legitimate pre-sale conversion price is invalid in violation of the mandatory law. The Defendant gains profit equivalent to the amount exceeding the legitimate pre-sale conversion price out of the sales price, and the Plaintiffs suffered losses equivalent to the same amount. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return the amount exceeding the legitimate pre-sale conversion price out of the sales price to the Plaintiffs, namely, the amount exceeding the legitimate pre-sale conversion price, and the amount equivalent

B. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant obtained the approval of the housing site development plan on July 10, 1990 prior to the enforcement of the said guidelines for the management of the housing site development business, and obtained the approval of the approval of the change of the housing site development plan and the implementation plan on July 29, 1994. In the calculation of the housing site cost of the instant apartment, the said guidelines for the management of the housing site development business do not apply. Therefore, it is lawful to calculate the pre-sale conversion price by 100% of the housing site development cost.

3. Determination

A. Whether relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Rental Housing Act, are mandatory regarding standards for calculating pre-sale conversion conversion price

The purpose of relevant statutes, such as the former Rental Housing Act, is to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure the stability of national housing life, and impose various restrictions on rental business operators to achieve the purpose thereof. In particular, the right to preferentially sell rental housing to homeless tenants after the lapse of the mandatory rental period and the standard for calculating pre-sale conversion is to prevent arbitrary pre-sale conversion of rental housing and ensure that rental business operators sell rental housing units to a reasonable pre-sale conversion price. Nevertheless, if a rental business operator interpreted that pre-sale conversion price is not sustainable after the lapse of the mandatory rental period, the rental business operator arbitrarily set the pre-sale conversion price exceeding the standard for pre-sale conversion price and then notified the lessee of the fact that the pre-sale conversion price should be allowed to enter into the pre-sale conversion price exceeding the standard for pre-sale conversion price set forth in the former Rental Housing Act, and accordingly, it is necessary to prevent the rental business operator’s preferential right to conversion of rental housing and to impose economic profits within the scope of the pre-sale conversion price set by the former Rental Housing Act, in violation of the former Rental Housing Act’s Act.

B. Calculation of pre-sale conversion price

According to Article 21(1) of the former Rental Housing Act, Articles 13(3) and 9(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, and Article 3-3(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, where rental housing is converted for sale, such conversion conversion price shall be based on ① the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value, and ② the construction cost of rental housing and housing site cost calculated at the time of conversion for sale (hereinafter “calculated price”) shall not exceed the amount calculated by subtracting the depreciation costs during the rental period from the housing price calculated at the

(c) Calculation method of housing site expenses;

The Guidelines for the Management of Housing Site Development Business was enacted on August 10, 1995, and the defendant obtained the approval of the housing site development plan with respect to the housing site development business in Ulsan-gu ( Address 1 omitted) in Ulsan-gu on July 10, 1990 prior to the enactment of the Guidelines for the Management of Housing Site Development Business, and on July 29, 194, the fact that the approval of the housing site development plan and the implementation plan was obtained on July 29, 1994 is as seen earlier, so the above Guidelines for the Management of Housing Site Development Business does not apply to the calculation of the housing site cost of the apartment of this case. Accordingly, the housing site cost of this case should be calculated at 100% of the development cost.

(d) Calculation of the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value; and

(i) Construction costs;

○ Construction Costs = the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants + self-interest on depreciation costs

The legitimate construction cost of the apartment of this case, which is calculated in accordance with the facts found to be in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, shall be as follows (hereinafter the same shall apply) if there is no dispute between the parties or if there is a document in subparagraph 2-1 and 2 of subparagraph (2).

(A) the housing value at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants;

① Construction costs of the entire apartment of this case: 11,497,376,00 won

② The housing site cost of the entire apartment of this case: 5,138,949,00 won

(3) The housing price at the time of recruitment of occupants: 16,636,325,00 won (=1 + 2)

④ The housing price at the time of recruitment of first occupants per square meter of the apartment of this case: 704,088 won

(16,636,325,00 won ± Total area of sale in lots 23,628.1739 square meters = 704,08 won)

(5) The housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants by type of apartment complex of this case

The housing price (cost) at the time of the first recruitment of occupants for the number of units in the head of the Dong included in the main sentence (=sale area 】 sale area 】 166.2510 89,605,654 209.747 267 49,106,406,606

B) Interest on own capital

○ Interest on self-interest = (The housing price at the time of the first recruitment of occupants £­ National Housing Fund loans £­ Security deposit prior to mutual conversion of deposits and rents) ¡¿ Interest rate ¡¿ rental period.

○ Interest rate: Interest rate obtained by averaging the average interest rates of one-year term deposits at financial institutions under the Banking Act as at the time of the commencement of the relevant rental house and the conversion for sale in lots.

○ Lease Period: Period from the commencement date of lease to the commencement date of conversion for sale in lots.

The interest rate on self-funds for each type of apartment of this case calculated based on the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants as above shall be as specified in the following table:

(2) The housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants as stated in the main sentence.

c) depreciation costs;

○ Depreciation costs: Accounting methods under Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act during the rental period.

Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 15(3) [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act: Buildings shall be in accordance with the method of calculation by the straight line method for buildings built of reinforced concrete shall be in accordance

(1) Depreciation costs: 1,437,172,00 won.

(11,497,376,00 won ± standard service life ± 40 years 】 lease period of 5 years = 1,437,172,00 won)

② Depreciation costs per square meter of the apartment of this case: 60,824 won

(1,437,172,00 won ± Total sale area of the apartment in this case = 23,628.1739 square meters = 60,824 won)

③ Depreciation costs of the instant apartment by type

The depreciation cost (cost) of the number of units of a ticket in the main sentence (number of lots) (=number of units in the lot) located in the main sentence (i.e., the sale area x the depreciation cost per 56.2510 89 3,421,410 209.747 267 4,242,151

D) Construction costs by type of the instant apartment complex

(2) The sale area in the form of a ticket included in the main sentence. ① The housing price at the time of the first recruitment of occupants (cost) (2) The depreciation cost (cost) (1) 39,605,654 3,310,2223,421,421,410, 394, 466, 49.747 49,106,406, 406, 4064, 939, 087 4, 242, 151, 49, 803,342, 342

(ii)the arithmetic mean of the cost of construction and the appraised value;

The values obtained by calculating the arithmetic mean of the appraised values, the construction costs and the appraised values by the type of apartment of this case shall be as follows:

(2) The minimum amount of the appraised value of the construction costs and the appraised value included in the main sentence.

(e) The calculation of the computed price minus the depreciation costs;

(i)the computed price;

○ Calculation Price = Construction cost at the time of conversion for sale in lots £« Construction cost at the time of public announcement of recruitment of occupants £« Interest on housing site cost

○ Interest on the site cost = the site cost 】 interest rate 】 lease period

The calculation of the interest rate and the term of lease shall be based on the same method as the calculation of the interest on its own funds.

(1) Construction costs at the time of conversion for sale in lots: 11,497,376,000 won.

(2) The housing site cost as at the time the invitation of occupants is publicly announced: 5,138,949,000 won.

(3) Interest on the cost of housing sites: 1,117,721,407 won.

(5,138,949,00 won for housing site ¡¿ interest rate of 4.35% per annum ¡¿ lease period of 5 years = 1,117,721,407 won)

④ Calculation price of the entire apartment of this case: 17,754,046,407 won (=1 +2 +3)

⑤ The calculation price per square meter of the apartment of this case:

(17,754,046,407 ± Total sale area of the apartment in this case = 23,628.1739 square meters = 751,393 won)

2) Price computed by deducting depreciation costs from the calculation price by type of the apartment of this case

(2) Depreciation costs (i) are calculated by deducting depreciation costs from calculation prices (i) - (ii) 166.2510 42,266,607 3,421, 410, 38,845, 197 209.747 52,405,679 4,679 4,242,151 48,163,528,528

(f) Reasonable pre-sale conversion;

As seen earlier, the “value obtained by calculating the arithmetic mean of the construction cost and the appraised value” of the apartment of this case does not exceed the “price obtained by deducting depreciation costs from the calculated value.” As such, the lawful pre-sale conversion price of the apartment of this case is the “value obtained by calculating the construction cost and the appraised value”

G. Calculation of sales price received by the Defendant exceeding the legitimate pre-sale conversion price

As seen earlier, the lawful pre-sale conversion price (hereinafter “k”) is calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the average of the legitimate construction cost (hereinafter “x”) and the two appraisal values (hereinafter “y” and “z” (hereinafter “z”) (k =). Since y and z can be seen as a fixed value, the difference between the reasonable construction cost and the construction cost calculated by the Defendant at the time of the conversion into the sale into the sale would affect the fair pre-sale conversion price (==the difference between the reasonable construction cost and the construction cost calculated by the Defendant at the time of the conversion into the sale.)

Therefore, “The amount calculated by multiplying the difference between the construction cost (16 square meters, 40,025,061 won, 20 square meters, and 49,626,422 won) and the reasonable construction cost calculated above, which the Defendant received by the Defendant in excess of the reasonable pre-sale conversion price for the apartment of this case” is the sales price received by the Defendant in excess of the reasonable pre-sale conversion price for the apartment of this case. The calculation of the sales price received by the Defendant in excess of the aforementioned evidence is as follows.

Type of table included in the main text ① Construction Costs (won) presented by the Defendant at the time of conversion for sale in lots. ② Justifiable Construction Costs (won) ③ 1640,025,061 39,494, 466 265, 297 209,626, 42249, 803,342-166 166 40,000

According to this, regarding the households falling under 16 square meters among the apartment units of this case, the defendant paid the above 265,297 won from the plaintiffs and the remaining designated parties in excess of the legitimate pre-sale conversion price, but regarding the households falling under 20 square meters, the sale price does not exceed the legitimate pre-sale conversion price. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have made unjust enrichment because the defendant fulfilled the duty to pay the purchase price with due payment.

Since 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 83 and 8 (Plaintiffs 8), and 8 (Plaintiffs 9) and the defendant have concluded each of the instant sales contracts in excess of the legitimate pre-sale conversion price, or succeeded to the claim for return of unjust enrichment to the defendant under such sales contract, the excess portion is null and void against the relevant laws and regulations, such as Rental Housing Act. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment and to pay 265,297 won to the above Appoints and the plaintiffs each of the above Appoints and the plaintiffs for late payment from October 14, 2011 to 20% interest rate of 15% interest rate per annum as determined by the plaintiffs.

However, the sale price of the sales contract concluded with the defendant or succeeded by the parties to the sales contract, other than the above designated parties and the plaintiffs, does not exceed the above legitimate sale price, so the above designated parties and the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims by the plaintiffs (Appointeds), 7 (Representatives 8), and 8 (Larges 9) are accepted within the scope of recognition as above. The remaining claims by the above plaintiffs and the claims by the remaining plaintiffs except the above plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit.

[Omission of List of Appointeds]

Judge Hong-ho (Presiding Judge)