1. Attached Form 1 is as shown in the Plaintiff and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong- full, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

E. S.P (Law Firm Han-S., Attorneys Lee In- case et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

January 9, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap30845 Decided October 11, 2012

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s Intervenor the corresponding amount indicated in the “Plaintiff” column of the calculation sheet of attached Table 2, excluding Plaintiff 30, Plaintiff 48 (Alternative Plaintiff 1), and Plaintiff’s successor, the amount calculated by applying the respective ratio of 5% per annum from the day immediately following the corresponding day to January 23, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The main and ancillary claims of Plaintiffs 30, 48 (Plaintiffs 1), and 50 (Plaintiffs 2) are dismissed, respectively, as well as the remaining main and conjunctive claims of the Plaintiffs and the Intervenors succeeding to the Plaintiff.

2. The total cost of the litigation between the plaintiffs 30, 48 (Plaintiff 1), and 50 (Alternative Plaintiff 2) and the defendant shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, and 1/3 of the total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs, the succeeding intervenors except the above plaintiffs and the defendant shall be borne by the remaining plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors, and 2/3 of the above shall be borne by the defendant respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenors (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") 2.3 per annum 5% per annum from the day from the day following the corresponding day to the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% per annum from the day from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following additional payment order shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs each amount stated in the column for "Incidental appeal amount" by the plaintiff on the calculation sheet by attached Table 2. The amount equivalent to 5% per annum from the day following each corresponding day to the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 23, 2002, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor published a plan to implement an urban development project under the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to a district, etc. of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jinna-dong, Gopa-dong, Gopa-dong, Gopa-dong, 3,593,000 square meters for the development of the Seoul Northern District, and on November 25, 2002, the base date for the relocation measures of the instant project was determined and announced as November 20, 2002 (No. 2002-130 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 202-130). After the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor obtained approval of the designation of an urban development zone from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on December 30, 203, the Defendant Urban Development Corporation (the name at the time was the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation, and the designation and announcement was made as the project district as of March 17, 2004).

B. On October 19, 2004, the Defendant announced the relocation measures for the instant project, and the main contents are as follows.

(2) On August 20, 2002, the tenant shall supply an apartment unit with an exclusive use area of 60 square meters or less within the business area to a person who has owned a house on his/her own land from before the base date to the date of conclusion of the agreement or the date of expropriation decision of expropriation on August 20, 202, which is three months before the base date, to a person who has continued to reside in the house concerned on his/her own land as of August 20, 2002: Provided, That the tenant shall supply an apartment unit with an exclusive use area of 85 square meters or less within the business area to a person who has voluntarily located within the business area, who meets the requirements of paragraph (1) and has no house in the business area as of the base date, to a person who has resided within the business area from before the base date to the date of public announcement of the indemnity plan.

C. According to the progress of the instant project, the Defendant publicly announced the compensation plan on the date indicated in each of the following “public announcement date of the compensation plan” in each of the following table for each district.

A non-high-water district compensation plan included in the main sentence shall be incorporated into a project district pursuant to Article 207-377 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City notification on October 18, 2007, among the districts of 3-1 district on March 29, 2005 and 3-2 district on February 15, 2006, 30-2 district on February 30, 2005.

D. The Defendant, as a part of the relocation measures against the Plaintiffs who lost their means of living due to the expropriation of their owned houses or land in the instant project district, decided to specially supply apartment houses to the Plaintiffs within the project district (hereinafter “instant apartment buildings”) to be developed by the implementation of the instant project, as part of the relocation measures against the Plaintiffs, as a result of the incorporation into the instant project district, and announced on January 10, 2008 about the special supply contract guidance. The sale price following the said special supply was determined the same amount as that of the general supply, namely, as the sale price of apartment buildings sold to the general public.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs concluded each contract for the sale of each of the instant apartment units with the Defendant on the basis that each of the corresponding amounts indicated in the “sale price” column in the attached Table 1 calculation sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant sales contracts”) should be specially supplied, and the Defendant paid each of the sales price under the sales contract by each of the corresponding dates stated in the “final payment date” column in the same Table to the Defendant.

F. The succeeding intervenor of the plaintiff 29, the succeeding intervenor of the plaintiff 52 acquired the status of the buyer under each sales contract from the plaintiff 28 (party 30) and the plaintiff 52 (party 1) who entered into the sales contract with the defendant, and the defendant accepted the above transfer and acquisition. The succeeding intervenor of the plaintiff 42 and the plaintiff 15 inherited the status of the buyer under each sales contract of the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 15 who entered into the sales contract with the defendant.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 27, 30, 31, 41, 42, 48, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 128, Eul evidence Nos. 105 through 167 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”). According to Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, the sale price applicable to a person subject to relocation measures should be calculated as only the ownership price of a housing site, the cost of creating a housing site, and the cost of construction (deduction of cost of basic facilities). However, the defendant entered into a sale contract at a price in excess of the price. Since each of the sales contracts in this case exceeds the legitimate sale price calculated as above is null and void, the defendant is obligated to return part of the sale price paid by the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are claiming for payment of each of the money in the column of "request amount" on the plaintiff's calculation sheet as unjust enrichment and damages for delay.

B. Occurrence of a claim for return of unjust enrichment

(1) Relevant legal principles

(A) Succession to the contract

If one of the parties to a contract transfers a position as a party to a contract comprehensively to a third party by concluding a three-dimensional contract or obtaining the consent of the other party, the third party who has taken over the status as a party to the contract shall succeed to the status of the transferor's contractual status, thereby transferring all the claims and obligations already incurred in

(B) Grounds for causing unjust enrichment

1) Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act provides for the project implementer’s duty to establish and implement relocation measures. The proviso to Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that a project implementer shall be deemed to have established and implemented relocation measures even in cases where the project implementer supplied a housing site or house to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to relevant statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act. Meanwhile, the main text of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act provides that the details of relocation measures include basic living facilities according to relevant local conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities

2) Comprehensively taking account of the contents, purpose, etc. of the above provisions, it is reasonable to deem that a project operator has to install basic living facilities under Article 78(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act and provide them to those subject to relocation measures, as the project operator may choose based on delegation of Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act, even in cases of special supply, since the project operator is a method of taking measures for relocation that can be selected by the project operator under the relevant statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Housing Act, pursuant to the proviso to Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act. This constitutes a mandatory law that cannot

3) Furthermore, the purpose of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act is to provide a person subject to relocation measures with a basis of living. As such, the term “basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities” under the said provision refers to key facilities, such as roads, water supply and drainage facilities, electric facilities, communications facilities, gas facilities, or district heating facilities, which are to be installed by a project proprietor who implements a housing construction project or a housing site development project under the relevant statutes, such as Article 23 of the Housing Act (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63089 Decided June 23, 201

4) Therefore, if a person subject to relocation measures was to pay the Defendant, who is the project executor, the cost of installing basic living facilities, out of the sale price, by including the cost of installing basic living facilities under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act in the sale contract of each case, in the sale price, the amount equivalent to the cost of installing basic living facilities out of the sale price is invalid in violation of the main sentence of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which is a mandatory law, and thus,

(2) Whether Plaintiffs 12 (Alternatives Plaintiffs 14), 16 (Larges 18), 17 (Larges 19), 18 (Larges 20), 19 (Larges 21), 20 (Larges 22), 22 (Larges 24), 25 (Larges 26), 27 (Larges 29), 28 (Larges 30), 30, 40, 46, 48 (Larges 18), 49 (Larges 48), 50 (Larges 22), and 56 (Larges 53) are eligible for relocation measures.

(A) Relevant legal principles

1) Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act provides that “A project operator shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds to a person who will lose his/her base of livelihood due to the implementation of a public project, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, for the person who is deprived of his/her base of livelihood due to the provision of a residential building due to the implementation of a public project.” Article 40(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”) provides that “The owner of a building who is excluded from a person subject to relocation measures without obtaining permission or filing a report, which is to be constructed after obtaining permission or filing a report; 2. The same shall not apply to the owner of a building who has not resided continuously from the date a public notice, etc. under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes for the public project to the date of conclusion of the contract or the ruling of expropriation: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the owner who resides in a building.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the contents and legislative intent of the above provisions, the "date of public announcement, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public projects" under Article 40 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act is the criteria for determining persons who are not those subject to relocation measures. In full view of these legal principles and the contents of the public announcement of the criteria for relocation measures of this case as seen earlier, the criteria for relocation measures of this case established by the defendant do not determine those who are not those subject to relocation measures as of November 20, 202, which is the base date for relocation measures. However, the criteria for relocation measures of this case set forth by the defendant as those who acquired the housing in the project area of this case prior to the date of public announcement of the plan for relocation measures as of November 20, 202, it is reasonable to see that the parties subject to relocation measures should be established and implemented among those subject to relocation measures, taking into account the consultation contract and voluntary migration, whether they continuously reside in the relevant housing until the date of conclusion of the contract or ruling of expropriation.

(B) The judgment on Plaintiffs 12 (Alternatives 14), 16 (Larges 18), 17 (Larges 19), 19 (Larges 20), 20 (Larges 22), 22 (Larges 24), 25 (Larges 26), 27 (Larges 29), 28 (Larges 30), 40, 46, 49 (Larges 48), and 56 (Larges 53)

Considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 86 through 97, 100, 101, 103, and 105, the following statements are as follows: ① Plaintiffs 12 (Plaintiffs 14), 16 (Plaintiffs 18), 17 (Plaintiffs 19), 18 (Plaintiffs 20), 25 (Plaintiffs 26), 27 (Plaintiffs 29), 49 (Plaintiffs 48), and 56 (Plaintiffs 53) acquired ownership of each expropriated real estate on the register before the date of public announcement of the compensation plan for each district and made a move-in report to that address, ② Plaintiffs 20 (Plaintiffs 22), 22 (Plaintiffs 22, 24, 28, and 48 (Plaintiffs 26, respectively) were not subject to the above move-in report, and their respective arguments were not subject to the move-in report before the date of public announcement of the compensation plan for each district.

(1) Plaintiff 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 9. 2, 2, 2, 9 and 4. 2 (Plaintiff 2, 4, 2, 9. 2, 9 and 4. 4. 1, 2, 9 and 9. 2, 2, 9 and 9. 2, 2, 9 and 4. 1, 2, 9 and 4. 2, 2, 9 and 9. 2, 2, 9 and 4. 1, 2, 9 and 9. 2, 2, 9 and 4. 2, 2, 9 and 4. 1, 2, 2006 (Plaintiff 1, 19) and 4. 6, 2, 2004) of this case (Plaintiff 2, 2, 2004) of this case

(C) Determination on Plaintiffs 30, 48 (Alternative Plaintiff 1), and 50 (Alternative Plaintiff 2)

1) Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 99, 102, and 104 alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff 30, 48 (Large-gu plaintiff 1), and 50 (Large-gu plaintiff 2) had resided in each of the expropriation real estate (Seoul Eunpyeong-gu 1 omitted), Seoul ( Address 2 omitted), and Eunpyeong-gu Seoul ( Address 3 omitted), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above plaintiffs constitute "a person excluded from a person subject to relocation measures" under Article 40 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act, and the defendant does not bear a duty to install basic living facilities with respect to the above plaintiffs.

2) The above plaintiffs asserted that they were eligible for relocation measures pursuant to the proviso to Article 40 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act because they did not reside in each of the above expropriated real estate due to unavoidable reasons, such as employment, school attendance, etc. However, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the above plaintiffs did not reside in each of the above expropriated real estate due to unavoidable reasons such as employment, school attendance, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

3) Furthermore, the above plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant’s act of deciding and notifying a person subject to relocation measures is an administrative disposition, and the project operator may extend the scope of the person subject to relocation measures under the Public Works Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by discretion. However, the above plaintiffs asserted that the above plaintiffs constitute a person subject to relocation measures under the Public Works Act because they were specially supplied with the apartment in this case

However, as seen earlier, the fact that the above plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the defendant for the apartment of this case according to the criteria for relocation measures set by the defendant, the above plaintiffs cannot be deemed as a person subject to relocation measures under Article 78 (1) of the Public Works Act for the following reasons.

(1) Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act provides that "a person who is deprived of his/her base of livelihood as a result of the provision of a residential building due to the implementation of public works shall be subject to the relocation measures, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and therefore, shall establish and implement the relocation measures or pay the resettlement subsidies for such person, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. The contents of the relocation measures provided for in Article 78(4) are subject to the relocation measures under Article 78(1). Thus, it is difficult to deem that a project operator is merely obligated to install the basic living facilities at the cost of the project operator as the details of the relocation measures pursuant to Article 78(1) as a matter of the relocation measures pursuant to Article 78(4) and that a person who is not subject to the relocation measures provided for in Article 78(1) is obligated to implement the relocation measures even to a person

② The purport of Article 78 of the Public Works Act regarding relocation measures is to ensure a living worthy of human dignity while restoring the previous living conditions to the person subject to relocation measures who would lose their base of life due to the provision of residential buildings necessary for the implementation of public works. Since the relocation measures system under the Public Works Act is the essential requirement that residents lose their base of life, it is difficult to deem that a person who is difficult to be deemed to have lost his base of life due to the implementation of public works as a person subject to relocation measures under

(3) Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act provides for the obligation to establish and implement the relocation measures as above, and Article 40(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “Where a person who wishes to move among those subject to the relocation measures is at least 10 persons, except for the cases where there are unavoidable reasons as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the relocation measures shall be established and implemented: Provided, That where a project operator supplies a housing site or house to those subject to the relocation measures (including the case where the housing site or house is supplied by the arrangement of a project operator; hereinafter referred to as a “special supply”)

According to the above provisions, if a project operator selects a method of special supply of a housing site or a house as a means of relocation measures for a person subject to relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act, it may be deemed that he/she established and implemented relocation measures, but it does not immediately become a person subject to relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act on the ground that he/she received a housing site or

Article 78 (1) of the Public Works Act and Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are used as the basis for implementing the relocation measures as publicly notified by the Defendant. However, in light of the fact that the defendant's relocation measures are mixed with the special supply of the housing to a person who is not a person subject to the relocation measures under Article 78 (1) of the Public Works Act in accordance with the Housing Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the regulations on housing supply, the defendant should be deemed to have specially supplied the above plaintiffs the housing in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Act. The conclusion of the sales contract in this case with the above plaintiffs is due to the fact that the above plaintiffs were subject to the relocation measures under Article 78 (1) of the Public Works Act, not because the above plaintiffs were subject to the relocation measures under Article 78 (1) of the same Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was subject to the relocation measures under Article 78 (1) of the same Act, and therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have decided the above plaintiffs's obligation to install the housing facilities 20120.

④ Even if a project operator is allowed to establish a criteria for relocation measures to those who are not those subject to relocation measures under the Public Works Act and enter into a sales contract, such benefits are merely specified in the legal relationship as stipulated in the criteria for relocation measures and sales contract, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant is not obliged to provide the above Plaintiffs with benefits as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the Public Works Act, beyond fulfilling the obligations under such criteria for relocation measures and sales contract.

4) Therefore, the above plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the above plaintiffs are subject to measures for resettlement are without merit.

(3) Determination as to whether the claim for unjust enrichment by Plaintiffs 2 (Alternatives 4), 8 (Larges 10), 12 (Larges 14), 22 (Larges 24), 28 (Larges 30), 42, 43, and 46 was extinguished or not

(A) Defendant’s assertion

Since the above plaintiffs transferred the status of the buyer to a third party under each contract for sale in this case, the above plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment was extinguished by the assignment of assignment.

(B) Determination

1) Although there is no dispute between the parties that the above plaintiffs transferred the status of the purchaser in each of the instant sales contracts to each of the successors listed in the separate sheet for sale in lots as shown in the separate sheet for sale in lots, considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, the fact that the successors who acquired the status of the purchaser in each of the instant sales contracts from the above plaintiffs transferred the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of the basic living facilities of this case to the above plaintiffs during the period from June 12, 2009 to March 4, 2010, and then notified the defendant of each of the assignment of claim for return of unjust enrichment by the above plaintiffs to the above plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that the unjust enrichment claim by the above plaintiffs became extinct due to the assignment of assignment of assignment is without merit.

2) As to this, the defendant asserted that the transfer and takeover of the above claim for return of unjust enrichment between the above plaintiffs and their successors constitutes a case where the transfer and takeover of claims for return of unjust enrichment takes place mainly with the intention of enabling litigation, and thus, the defendant's assertion is invalid. However, there is no evidence to

C. Scope of the claim for return of unjust enrichment (as to the remaining plaintiffs except Plaintiffs 30, 48 (Alternative Plaintiff 1), and 50 (Alternative Plaintiff 2))

(1) Method of calculating unjust enrichment and basic data

(A) Method of calculating unjust enrichment

1) In the case of special supply of apartments such as the instant sales contract, apartment construction business operators, or project operators are supplied with housing sites at prices for which the cost of the basic living facilities is not deducted and sold in lots. Thus, the sales price paid by the plaintiffs should be deemed to include the cost of the basic living facilities in the sales price that is not deducted from all. (In this regard, the defendant asserts that the cost of the basic living facilities cannot be inferred that the cost of the basic living facilities is included in the sales price just because the defendant calculated the cost of the basic living facilities separately and did not deduct it from the sales price. However, as seen earlier, insofar as the sales price was made on the same condition as the price supplied to the general public who is not the person subject to relocation measures, it is logical to view that the cost of the basic living facilities is included in the sales price of each of the instant sales contracts. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the cost of the basic living facilities is included in the sales price of each of the instant sales contracts, and there is no evidence to prove this part of this part.)

2) Regarding the method of calculation, the amount of unjust enrichment that the Defendant must return to the Plaintiffs is equivalent to the cost of installing the basic living facilities for the instant project, and is calculated based on the formula of “the cost supply area” among the total site area of the instant apartment building sold by the Plaintiff / the total site area of the instant apartment site / the total site area of the instant project area. The cost of installing the basic living facilities is the sum of the cost of the basic living facilities (=total site cost x (the total site area / the total site area of the living facilities), ② cost of creating the basic living facilities, ③ direct personnel expenses for the basic living facilities, sales management expenses, capital expenses, etc.

(B) Basic data on calculation of unjust enrichment

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 58 and Eul evidence Nos. 8, the entire site area in the instant project area is 3,492,421 square meters, and 1,873,463 square meters among them is a fee supply area, and the total project cost related to the creation of housing sites among the instant projects (hereinafter "total project cost") can be acknowledged as follows.

3,835,630,315,962 development cost 492,356,786,482 direct personnel expenses 10,028,713,448 relocation measures cost 32,323,092,482, indirect expenses sales cost and general management cost 49,384,829,665 capital cost 655,461,460,260,260, total project cost 5,075,184,78,2999

(2) Individual review of whether it constitutes a basic living facility and of its cost;

(a) Site cost for basic living facilities;

1) Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 169, the fact that the area of the site where the basic living facilities are installed is 475,695 square meters of the road. Therefore, the land for the basic living facilities is 522,442,787,725 won (the total site cost of 3,835,630,315,962 won x the total site area of 475,695 square meters of the total site area of 475,692,421 square meters of the total site area of the basic living facilities / the total site area of 475,695 square meters of the total site area of the basic living facilities / the total site area of 3,492,442.5 square meters among the land utilization plan, but the defendant did not have any grounds to recognize it as seen thereafter, while the defendant did not claim that this part should be excluded from the site cost of the road.

2) Individual review

A) Road facilities

① Defendant’s assertion

Article 24(4) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides that the scope of a road which is a basic living facility under the former Public Works Act shall be limited to the excessive part where its length exceeds 200 meters, and in particular, a housing complex under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Housing Act may be divided into more than 8 meters in width. Thus, a road the width of which falls short of 8 meters is merely a road within a housing complex and not an arterial facility. In addition, among roads within the project district of this case, a road whose width falls short of 8 meters is merely a road within a housing complex. In addition, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act and Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Housing Construction Standards, such as the first line of national highways and the national map No. 39, occupy a considerable part, and if a road is classified as a basis in attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act as seen above, there

(2) Judgment

According to Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405 of Feb. 3, 2009; hereinafter “former Housing Act”), “arterial facilities” refers to facilities that connect the key facilities located outside a housing complex (where two or more housing complexes are simultaneously developed, referring to each housing complex), such as roads, water supply and drainage systems, electrical facilities, gas facilities, communications facilities, and district heating facilities, to the same key facilities located outside the relevant housing complex.

Article 21 (1) 2 of the same Act provides that the standards for installation of incidental facilities concerning the construction, etc. of housing constructed and supplied by a project undertaker shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 25 of the former Regulations on Standards for Housing Construction (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008) provides that a housing complex where an apartment house is constructed as one of incidental facilities shall be adjacent to or at a time (referring to a road as prescribed by Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21290, Feb. 3, 2009) and access roads to the housing complex shall be adjacent to the housing complex concerned after obtaining approval of a project plan under Article 16 of the former Housing Act (including access roads (including the period adjacent to the housing site concerned). Article 57 of the same Act provides that a project undertaker shall submit a plan for installation of facilities exceeding the standards prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2197, Mar. 19, 2009). 209).

In addition, according to Article 23(1) of the former Housing Act, where a project proprietor implements a housing construction project in excess of the number of houses as determined by the Presidential Decree or a housing site development project in excess of the size as determined by the Presidential Decree, roads and water supply and sewerage systems shall be installed by a local government (paragraph (1) and electric facilities, telecommunications, telecommunications, gas or district heating facilities shall be installed by a person who supplies electricity, telecommunications, gas or heating to the relevant area (paragraph (2) but where a project proprietor intends to install facilities falling under subparagraph 1 as included in the housing construction project plan or housing site development project plan under Article 16(1), he/she

As such, roads, which are arterial facilities installed under a housing construction project or a housing site preparation project to which the former Housing Act applies, are responsible for connecting the entrance of a housing complex in the project district with roads outside the project district, and are essential facilities for achieving the functions of the housing complex, etc. and for passage of the residents, regardless of the length or width of the roads, and the project undertaker is obliged to install the roads in accordance with the former Housing Act and the housing construction project plan or housing site preparation project plan based thereon.

In light of the contents of the former Housing Act and the purport of the former Act and the en banc Decision that seeks to provide a basis for living to the persons subject to relocation measures as seen earlier, the roads that a project operator is required to provide a housing construction project or a housing site development project within a housing site development project zone, such as this case, to the persons subject to relocation measures, shall be directly regulated by the said provisions of the former Housing Act, notwithstanding their length and width, and shall include roads that correspond to arterial facilities as defined in Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the same Act, and, i.e., roads located outside the housing complex, which are connected to roads located outside the housing complex concerned. Such interpretation shall be reasonable in cases of public works implemented under the old Housing Construction Promotion Act, which have the same provisions as stipulated in the former Housing Construction Promotion Act and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(b)water supply facilities;

The Plaintiffs asserted that the site cost for the water supply facilities should be included in the site cost for the basic living facilities of 7,853.9 square meters of land for the water supply facilities. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 58, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the area of the site for the water supply facilities is 7,853.9 square meters of land for the water supply facilities, and as seen earlier, the water supply facilities are included in the basic living facilities. However, according to the above evidence, the water supply facilities of this case are not separately counted on the ground that the area of the water supply facilities overlaps with the neighboring park within the instant business area. Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the water supply facilities of this case are deemed buried and installed in the neighboring park within the instant business area. The above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the land of the above 7,853.9 square meters of land for the water supply facilities is separately used to be included in the calculation of the sale price, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(c) Other

The plaintiffs claim that all urban infrastructure, such as automobile stops, buffer green belt, green belt, green belt, neighboring park, river, reservoir, school, sports facilities, museums, general medical facilities, etc., should be included in basic living facilities. However, even if the defendant installed the above facilities pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations, it is difficult to conclude that the whole urban infrastructure as above falls under the basic living facilities at a normal level necessary to restore the basis of living to the original state and guarantee the living worthy of human beings, in light of the fact that the relocation measures system under the former Public Works Act was established at the same time by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public works and at the same time, it is difficult to conclude that the whole urban infrastructure as above falls under the basic living facilities at a level necessary for restoring the basis of living to the original state subject to relocation measures, and there is no ground to recognize it otherwise, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(b) Costs of creating basic living facilities;

1) Facts of recognition

In full view of each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 8, 87, 88, 93, 95, and 99, the creation cost of basic living facilities shall be 151,535,378,585 won in total as follows:

The expenses for the classification of the table contained in the main sentence (won) 1 road, water supply and sewerage road, water supply and sewerage construction expenses, 100,43,09,130, 1302 pressure pumps and water supply pipes for the construction expenses for 193,00,000, 3015,000,000 for sewage treatment charges for 32,493,31,63310,000 for the electricity supply and telecommunications construction expenses for 32,474, 926, 322, total 111 gas (main 2),51,535,378,585,585, for the electricity supply and drainage charges for 32,493,331,631,6310 for the electricity supply and telecommunications construction expenses for 32,474,926, 3226, 111,657,500

2) Urban gas construction costs

(ii) individual review of whether the cost of creating the basic living facilities constitutes the cost of creation;

(a) The construction cost of roads, water supply and sewerage construction cost, pressure pumps and water pipes, the cost of supplying pipes, the cost of supplying pipes, the cost of expanding drain pipes, and the cost of sewage treatment;

According to the aforementioned evidence, with respect to the construction cost of roads, water supply and sewerage construction cost, pressure pumps and water supply and sewerage construction cost of the main facilities to be installed when the defendant implements the project in this case under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Act, the construction cost of roads, water supply and sewerage construction cost of the main facilities to be installed shall be acknowledged as being the construction cost actually borne by the defendant through consultation, etc. with the local government, which is the legal obligor, in accordance with the contents of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or the approved project plan, or through consultation with the local government, etc., which is the legal obligor, and the charges for sewage disposal, which are charges and charges imposed on the defendant for the construction or extension of the main facilities, which are the main facilities newly required for the project in this case pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

B. Electrical construction costs, telecommunications construction costs, urban gas construction costs

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted earlier, namely, ① electricity, telecommunications, and urban gas facilities constitute arterial facilities to be installed when the Defendant implements the instant project under the Housing Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. In the case of gas and telecommunications facilities, the key facilities within the instant project area are also included in the scope of basic facilities under the former Public Works Act. ② The Defendant concluded a contract for electrical construction and telecommunications construction of the instant project and paid 32,493,31,633 won to the contractor as electrical construction cost, and 3,474,926,322 won as telecommunications construction cost. The underground installation cost includes 32,493,331,63 won as well as underground installation cost, and the underground installation cost of the electric facilities can be deemed as the installation cost of the instant facilities under the former Public Works Act, and the construction cost of the instant facilities is deemed as the construction cost of each of the instant facilities under the former Public Works Act, including the total construction cost of the instant facilities, which was actually calculated by the Defendant with 150% of the construction cost of the instant urban gas project.

C) The costs of strengthening subways, the cost of maintaining slopings, and the cost of repairing slopings

The plaintiffs claim that the expenses for the strengthening of subways, the uniform road construction, the maintenance cost, the maintenance cost of Changcheon, and the maintenance cost of the construction cost of the living facilities are the construction cost of the basic living facilities. Thus, according to the evidence adopted earlier, with respect to the soundproof tunnels installed as a means of noise reduction based on the analysis of environmental impacts of the project of this case, the expenses for the strengthening of the soundproof pole is necessary as a result of the examination of the stability of the existing educational structure in relation to the soundproof tunnels installed as a means of noise reduction based on the analysis of environmental impacts of the project of this case, and the expenses for the strengthening of the subway shall be paid in consultation with the subway construction. The expenses for the maintenance of Changcheoncheon is the expenses for the construction of the facilities in the Changcheoncheon Bank as the replacement cost was installed in the Changcheoncheon Bank at the time of the removal of military facilities. The fact that the actual construction cost is the expenses for the restoration of the actual opening of the project area of this case, and there is no reason to recognize that the above facts alone constitute the installation costs of the main facilities of the Housing Act.

D) Uniform street association construction cost

Although the plaintiffs claim that the cost of construction for a unified street constitutes the cost of creating a basic living facility, the aforementioned evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the unification street road constitutes a basic living facility as a main road that functions to connect the roads within the project area in this case and for a period outside the project area, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiffs is without merit.

(e) Contributions to improve metropolitan transportation;

According to the evidence above, the plaintiffs asserted that the metropolitan transport improvement contributions (the "metropolitan transport improvement contributions" included in the project costs of the instant case seems to be the "metropolitan transport facility contributions" which will be seen later) are included in the cost of creating basic living facilities related to the instant project.

According to the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Intercity Transport Act”), a person who implements a housing site development project under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act in a metropolitan area prescribed by Presidential Decree among metropolitan areas shall pay metropolitan transport facility charges to construct and improve intercity transport facilities (Article 11 subparagraph 1); and a person who charges charges for metropolitan transport facilities in a metropolitan area shall be imposed and collected by the Mayor/Do Governor in the area where the project is implemented (former part of Article 11-4(1)). The term “metropolitan area” in this context means an area prescribed by Presidential Decree among the areas located in the traffic life zones in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, and the same cities under Article 2(1)1 of the Local Autonomy Act (Article 2 subparag. 1); the term “metropolitan transport facilities” means traffic facilities in metropolitan areas covering two or more Special Metropolitan Cities, Metropolitan Cities, and Dos, which meet the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree, including urban railroads or railroads operated over two or roads.

In light of the relevant provisions of the former Metropolitan Transport Act including these provisions, the charges for metropolitan transport facilities only imposed in metropolitan areas are required for the construction and improvement of metropolitan transport facilities in metropolitan areas, and the expenses incurred in raising the value of the housing site and housing in metropolitan areas are imposed on the project operator by the Mayor/Do Governor. In view of the fact that those subject to relocation measures who are supplied with the housing site for migrants in metropolitan areas have profits from the construction and improvement of metropolitan transport facilities, the charges for metropolitan transport facilities cannot be deemed to constitute the installation costs of basic living facilities to be provided to those subject to relocation measures as a basis

Article 11-2(1)3 of the former Metropolitan Transport Act provides that no metropolitan transport facility charge shall be imposed on a housing site and a housing construction project in accordance with the implementation of relocation measures under Article 78 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor. However, this provision provides that the Mayor/Do Governor, who is the authority imposing charges for metropolitan transport facilities, shall not impose the charges for metropolitan transport facilities on the land for the creation of housing site and the construction of housing in accordance with the implementation of relocation measures, to reduce the burden of the operator of the development project to pay the charges for metropolitan transport facilities. In a case where the operator of the development project actually paid the charges for metropolitan transport facilities in the course of the creation of housing site and the construction of housing, even if the number of buyers includes the person subject to relocation measures, the charges for metropolitan transport facilities actually disbursed shall not

Therefore, even if an operator of a development project includes the amount equivalent to the charges for metropolitan transport facilities in the sale price entered into with a person subject to relocation measures according to the determination of the actual charges for metropolitan transport facilities and the sales price, barring special circumstances, such as the law or agreement to exclude it from the sale price, the portion equivalent to the charges for metropolitan transport facilities out of the sales price agreed under the sale contract cannot be deemed null and void. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the operator of a development project benefits in relation to the person subject to relocation measures

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(f) Other

The plaintiffs asserted that the construction cost of basic living facilities is 135,87,084,014 won, excluding the construction cost of 100,433,09,130 won for roads and water supply and sewerage systems, among the total construction cost of 236,310,093,14 won, and that the construction cost of basic living facilities is 100,43,009,130 won for the construction cost of roads and water supply and sewerage systems, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, it can be known that the construction cost of basic living facilities was calculated including both the construction cost of roads and water supply and sewerage systems, interest installation cost, supervision cost, waste disposal cost, follow-up environmental research service cost, and other incidental cost related to roads and water supply and sewerage systems, and that the main facilities cost is excluded from the items of civil construction cost. In light of these circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that additional construction cost of basic living facilities was paid for the construction of basic living facilities, and there is no

(C) Direct personnel expenses, etc. for basic living facilities

(a) direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, or general management expenses;

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 8, the direct personnel expenses out of the project expenses in this case shall be multiplied by 0.23% of the total amount of site expenses, development expenses, and relocation measures expenses, which is determined by the defendant, and the sales expenses and general personnel expenses shall be multiplied by 1.13% of the total amount of site expenses, development expenses, direct personnel expenses, and relocation measures expenses, which are determined by the defendant, respectively. Thus, among the project expenses in this case, the direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, and general management expenses shall be included in the construction expenses of basic living facilities that are not appropriated by the defendant by multiplying the site expenses and development expenses of the living facilities in this case, which are determined by the above specific ratio as above,

Therefore, the facts that the cost of the site for the basic living facilities pertaining to the instant project is 522,42,787,725 won, and the cost of the creation of the basic living facilities is 151,535,378,585 won as seen earlier. Therefore, the direct labor cost related to the cost of the installation of the basic living facilities is 1,550,149,783 won [=673,978,166,310 won + (i.e., the cost of the basic living facilities + 522,42,47,787,725 won + the cost of the construction of the basic living facilities + 151,537,378,585 won] x 0.23%], the sales cost and general management cost are 7,633,469,971 won [=675,316,3193 won + the cost of the basic living facilities x 52,42757,51575

(ii) capital costs;

Pursuant to the statement in Eul evidence No. 8, of the total cost of the housing site in this case, capital cost is calculated by multiplying the amount of expenditure for each site cost, development cost, and relocation measure cost by 4.63% until the completion of the project in this case. It can be found that the total cost of the housing site in this case is 4,360,310,194,926 won by the capital cost of the total cost of the housing site in this case and the total cost of the relocation measures is 65,461,040,260 won by the capital cost of the total cost of the housing site in this case. The total capital cost of the total cost of the housing site in this case is 101,361,315,367,543 won [65,461,040,260 won x 522,427,787,725 won + the cost of the basic living facilities in this case 151,537,48,96,400

3) Therefore, direct personnel expenses related to the basic living facilities, sales expenses and general management expenses related to the basic living facilities, 7,633,469,971 won, and capital expenses related to the basic living facilities, 101,315,367,543 won shall be included in the cost of the basic living facilities.

(D) Costs of installing basic living facilities per square meter of each site area of the instant case and calculation of unjust enrichment

1) Ultimately, the cost of establishing the basic living facilities of the instant project is KRW 522,442,787,725; ② cost of creating the basic living facilities; ② cost of establishing the basic living facilities; ③ cost of direct labor cost of KRW 151,535,378,58,585; ③ cost of direct labor cost of KRW 1,550,149,783; sales cost and general management cost of KRW 7,63,469,971; capital cost of KRW 101,315,367,367,543; total cost of KRW 784,47,153,607; and the cost of installing the basic living facilities of KRW 1,873,463 square meters within the entire site area in the instant project area is KRW 418,731,731 (i) cost of installing the basic living facilities (i.e., cost of installing the basic living facilities; volume of KRW 78747,15363,76367/7.

2) Therefore, the amount of unjust enrichment by the Plaintiff, who is a person subject to relocation measures, shall be the amount corresponding to each of the instant sites, multiplied by the installation cost of basic living facilities per 1 square meter per 418,731 won in attached Table 2. The “personal fee” column in the calculation sheet.

D. Sub-determination

(1) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay for unjust enrichment to the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 30, 48 (Counter-board plaintiff 1), and 50 (Large-board plaintiff 2) the amount corresponding to the "amount of discount" as stated in the "amount of calculation in attached Table 2." as well as damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until January 23, 2014, which is the date immediately following the corresponding day in the "date of final payment" as claimed by the plaintiffs, as a result of the date of the lawsuit in this case, which falls under the "date of final payment" as stated in the "date of final payment" as stated in the "date of final payment" as stated by the "date of the lawsuit in this case."

(2) However, as seen earlier, Plaintiffs 30, 48 (Large-board Plaintiff 1), and 50 (Large-board Plaintiff 2) do not constitute a person subject to relocation measures, and thus, the above Plaintiffs’ claim based on the premise that the above Plaintiffs constituted a person subject to relocation measures is groundless.

3. Judgment on the preliminary claim (excluding the portion cited in the main claim);

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Even if the Defendant’s return of unjust enrichment is not acknowledged, the Defendant promised the Plaintiffs to supply an apartment building at a lower price than the ordinary sale price, thereby failing to comply with it, and committed tort by inducing the Plaintiffs to pay the debt, or by inducing the Plaintiffs to comply with the consultation compensation. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiffs for the said damages.

B. Determination

The written evidence Nos. 32, 37, 125, and 126 is that supplying apartment at a price lower than the general sale price between the defendant and the plaintiffs is the content of the sales contract, and it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant bears the duty to supply apartment at a price lower than the general sale price pursuant to the sales contract, or that the defendant deceivings the plaintiffs. The above argument by the plaintiffs is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the remaining plaintiffs' claims except plaintiffs 30, 48 (Plaintiffs 1), and 50 (Plaintiffs 2) are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. The claims of plaintiffs 30, 48 (Plaintiffs 1), and 50 (Plaintiffs 2) are dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the remaining incidental appeals of the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs 30, 48 (Plaintiffs 1), and 50 (Plaintiffs 2), and the defendant's incidental appeal of the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs 30, 48 (Plaintiffs 1), and 50 (Plaintiffs 2) are accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above (the incidental appeal is part of the court of first instance).

[Attachment List]

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge)

1) If a house is supplied under Article 41-2(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act as amended on February 29, 2008, the cost of establishing basic living facilities is calculated in the same way.

(2) The Plaintiffs, who are subject to relocation measures, are entitled to the individual item of “urban Gas Contributions”. However, the substance is that the Defendant shared the construction cost of urban gas facilities in accordance with an agreement between the Seoul Urban Gas Corporation and the Seoul Urban Gas Corporation, and thus, it is indicated as urban gas construction cost

Note 3) = Land cost 3,835,630,315,962 + Development cost 492,356,786,482 + Relocation cost 32,323,092,482

4) Since there is no data that could identify the date of each disbursement of the cost of the cost of the basic living facilities, which serves as the basis of the calculation of the capital cost, the capital cost corresponding to the cost of the cost of the basic living facilities shall be calculated according to the ratio of the total capital cost to the cost of the site, the cost of creation, and the cost of the relocation measures to the cost of the basic living