1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. From August 24, 2013 to July 3, 2015, the Defendant KRW 13,685,352 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Seoul Metropolitan Government announced on April 27, 2004 the compensation plan for the land and buildings incorporated into the project district as the project district in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the project district in the project district, and on June 15, 2004, the status of the project implementer as the defendant was changed in the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. In accordance with the Seoul Special Supply Rules of the National Housing Act (Seoul Special Supply Rules, No. 3305, hereinafter “instant Special Supply Rules”), 24 households out of E and F apartment units constructed by the SH under the Seoul Special Supply Rules were to be specially supplied to the owners of the housing that had been assigned within the said project district and has lost their base of living, and the Plaintiff was selected as the said specially supplied object.

C. On October 4, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for five apartment complexes of the E-district 5, 15 dong 1009 to be specially supplied (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) from the SH Corporation, and paid all the sales price under the said contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 to 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the instant sales contract is governed by 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”). Thus, even though the amount equivalent to the cost of the basic living facilities is borne by the Defendant pursuant to Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which is a mandatory provision, included the cost of the basic living facilities in the sale price and received the payment from the Plaintiff. This is invalid in violation of the mandatory law. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the cost of the basic living facilities and the damages for delay.

B. (1) Article 78(1) and (2) of the former Public Works Act shall apply to the obligation to return unjust enrichment.