All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal No. 5, where a project operator separately determines the sales price of the resettled housing site by applying a gap within the scope of discretion, the development cost of the entire resettled housing site may be deemed to have been differentiatedly allocated to the individual resettled housing site in accordance with the location conditions. As such, in calculating the development cost, basic living facilities installation cost, and reasonable sales price for the individual resettled housing site, the relevant gap shall be calculated by reflecting the relevant gap.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da6572 Decided August 20, 2014. The purport of reflecting the gap lies only in maintaining equity among persons subject to relocation measures who purchase migrants housing site, and does not change the existence or scope of unjust enrichment that a project operator should return to all persons subject to relocation measures due to reflection of the gap rate. Thus, the gap rate to be reflected in this context should be the difference between the amount of the development cost of the entire migrants housing site subject to differential allocation and the amount of the purchase price of the individual migrants housing site as a result of differential allocation between the unit area of the development cost of the individual housing site subject to allocation and

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant: (a) determined the unit price for the supply of the multi-resident housing site (hereinafter referred to as “multi-resident housing site” as KRW 1,18,196 per square meter; and (b) calculated by multiplying the area of the individual multi-resident housing site by the gap rate calculated in comparison with the reference land (hereinafter referred to as “distance rate”); and (c) determined the amount calculated by multiplying the unit price of the multi-resident housing site by the proportion of the difference calculated by multiplying the area of the individual multi-resident housing site (hereinafter referred to as “distance rate”); and (d) determined as the unit price for the sale of the individual multi-resident housing site by the proportion of the “area subject to the gap rate” of the total area subject to the said unit price of the multi-resident housing site, among the “area subject to the difference rate of the total area subject to the difference” of the total area subject to the said unit price.