All appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 144, Jun. 26, 2009; hereinafter “amended Enforcement Rule”) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 144, Jun. 26, 2009) is not the upper limit price, but the construction cost, which is an element of the base amount, should

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 2 of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Rule, contrary to what is alleged in

2. As to the grounds of incidental appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the “construction cost at the time of sale conversion” can be calculated by adding 5/100 to the “construction cost at the time of sale conversion,” which can be added to the “construction cost at the time of sale conversion,” which serves as the basis for calculating the upper limit price.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the additional items of standard construction costs, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of incidental

3. Therefore, all appeals and incidental appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.