The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. With respect to the scope of roads falling under the basic living facilities that a project implementer is required to provide the basic living facilities to a person subject to relocation measures, such roads include both the roads falling under the main living facilities prescribed in subparagraph 8 of Article 2 of the Housing Act, i.e., roads located outside the relevant housing complex, notwithstanding their length or width (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013) and roads which connect the same kind of roads located outside the relevant housing complex (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the roads installed within the relevant housing complex, which are an essential facility for the achievement of the functions of the housing complex, etc. in the relevant housing complex and the passage of the entire residents, and are included in the basic living facilities (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da29509, Jul. 23, 2015).

2. With respect to the calculation of the cost of basic living facilities related to bridges, such as underground lanes, tunnels, overpassess, and overpassess, the lower court determined that the total amount of the cost of the construction of the bridge, such as underground lanes, tunnels, overpassess, and overpasses, appropriated in the cost of the construction of the housing site, is included in the cost of basic living facilities on the ground that both underground lanes, tunnels, and bridges are installed on roads

The judgment below

relevant reasons.