2014Na651 Return of Unjust Enrichment

Attached Table 1 is as shown in the list of plaintiffs.

Es. Es.S.P

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap65066 Decided November 8, 2013

oly 10, 290

November 2015, 26

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant ordering payment to the defendant in excess of 5% per annum from June 25, 2010 to November 26, 2015, and 20% per annum from June 25, 2010 to the date of full payment from the next day to the date of full payment, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

2. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, and N is revoked, and all of the above plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's remaining appeals against H, I, K, L, M,O, P, and Q are all dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiffs H, I, K, L, M,O, P, Q and the defendant shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, N and the defendant shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, and the appeal costs by the plaintiffs R, S, T, U, Z, AA, AB, AB, Q, AX and B shall be borne by the above plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant pays 5% interest per annum from the corresponding date to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 20% interest per annum from the corresponding date to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 5% interest per annum from the corresponding date to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 5% interest per annum from the next date to the date of full payment for the remaining money, 5% interest per annum from the corresponding date to the service date of a copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next date to the date of full payment for the remaining money.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet of claim amount and appeal amount table of attached Table 3 10,000,000 among each of the above amounts and each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from each of the corresponding dates to the service date of the copy of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum from the next day to the service date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 5% per annum from each of the corresponding dates to the service date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the service date of the copy of the application for modification of claim of this case to the delivery date of the copy of the copy of the claim of this case, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, and Q is revoked, and all of the above plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

(a) Execution of an urban development project;

1) On November 10, 2003, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (DF announced by Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 10, 2003, designated the Defendant (the name as of March 17, 2004 was changed from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation to the same name as of March 17, 2004) as the project implementer of the urban development project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”), approved the housing construction project plan on December 24, 2004, and approved the Defendant’s urban development project implementation plan on December 27, 2004.

2) The Defendant, from November 10, 2003 to December 31, 2009, publicly announced a compensation plan for the BE city development project on October 8, 2004 in the process of constructing and selling an apartment of 2,31 households (59mi 30 households in exclusive use area, 84 1,978 households in exclusive use area, 11453 households) in the BE city development project zone (hereinafter “instant project zone”), and on February 14, 2005, publicly announced the relocation measures for the instant project (hereinafter “the relocation measures”). The main contents are as follows.

【Public Notice of Relocation Guidelines for the EE Urban Development Zone】

○ Establishment and Enforcement Grounds: Article 78 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works and Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

○ Base Date for Relocation Measures: On July 9, 2003; Provided, That in the case of tenants, on April 9, 2003, 2003, 3 months before the base date;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3) The development area of the urban development project in the BE is 891,412.4m, the paid supply area is 461,165m, and the free supply area is 430,247.4m.

(b) Special supply of national housing;

1) Each purchaser listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and the sheet of transfer and acquisition (hereinafter referred to as the "sellers of this case") provided each of the above real estate for the above public works as the housing or land owned by him was incorporated into the business area of this case.

2) The Defendant, as a project implementer of the instant project with respect to each of the buyers of the instant case, sold an apartment to the said buyers within the project district by conducting an urban development project under BE as a project implementer in accordance with the above criteria for relocation measures (hereinafter referred to as “the instant special supply housing”).

C. The plaintiffs shall succeed to the rights and obligations of the buyers under each sales contract from the buyers of this case on the date stated in the "Date of Sale in Lots 2 and Transfer and Acquisition Details Table", and obtain approval from the defendant, and the defendant shall pay the sale price in full and complete the registration of transfer according to each of the above sales contracts on each of the dates stated in the "Date of Final Payment in the Attached Form 3 and the Table of Appeal Amount".

(d) Relevant statutes are as listed in Appendix 6-related statutes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 11, 15, 16, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the claim for return of unjust enrichment occurred

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

According to Article 78 (4) of 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 referred to as the "former Public Works Act"), the buyer of this case purchased the special housing of this case from the defendant as one of the relocation measures under the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects. According to Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act, the costs of installing the basic housing of this case shall be borne by the project operator and shall not be borne by the person subject to relocation measures. As the defendant calculated the cost of installing the basic housing of this case in selling the special housing of this case, the cost of installing the basic housing of each of the sale contracts of this case shall be null and void, and therefore the defendant shall return the amount equivalent to the cost of installing the

B. Relevant legal principles

1) Whether the buyers of this case are eligible for relocation measures under Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act and the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act shall be determined in accordance with Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act. However, Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act provides that a project operator shall establish relocation measures, etc. for a person subject to relocation measures, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 40(3) of the former Public Works Act provides that the owner of a building constructed without obtaining permission from a person subject to relocation measures shall be excluded from a person subject to relocation measures. Article 40(3) of the former Public Works Act provides that the owner of a building constructed without obtaining permission from a person subject to relocation measures, the owner of a building who does not continue to reside in the building from

2) Meanwhile, Article 6 of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722 of Feb. 29, 2002, Presidential Decree No. 17854 of Dec. 30) provides that "the owner of a building constructed without obtaining permission or filing a report on construction as of Jan. 24, 1989 shall be included in the person subject to relocation measures, notwithstanding Article 40 (3) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree." Thus, in light of the language and details of Article 6 of the above Addenda, details of introduction, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2072 of Feb. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 17854 of Dec. 30, 1989, the above Addenda provision should not be included in the scope of Article 40 (3) 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act as to the owner of the building without permission.

3) Furthermore, in cases where the relevant Act that requires the application of the Act on the Expropriation of Land beyond the public announcement of project approval under the Act on the Expropriation of Public Works Projects provides for the public inspection of residents, etc., the “date of public announcement, etc. under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes for the public project, which serves as the basis for the relocation measures” may include not only the public announcement of project approval but also the public announcement of the public inspection (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1340, Feb. 26, 2009). However, the standard for determining whether a person is eligible for relocation measures as prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes should be individually specified in the relevant Act and subordinate statutes based on the basis of each public project, and the applicable legal base date for relocation measures, which are mandatory provisions, should be interpreted as one of the legal base dates for relocation measures, and if a project operator can choose one of them as stipulated in the Act and subordinate statutes, it shall be deemed that the project operator is not likely to cause confusion and go against equity, and it shall not be deemed that Article 285 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act is necessary for public project.

C. Whether Plaintiff A, B, C, D, R, E, F, S, G, U, Z, AB, J, N, Q, AX, and B (19) has a claim for return of unjust enrichment

1) Facts of recognition

The facts of Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 through 10, 12, 15 through 17, 27, 28, 31, 34, 40, 41, 42, 48, and 13-17 of the evidence Nos. B-17 are as follows: (a) the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not make a public announcement for the designation of the B-E city development zone in accordance with Article 7 of the Urban Development Act and Article 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act for the purpose of designating the B-E city development zone as an urban development zone; (b) the number of buyers stated in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 9-2 of the above plaintiffs were transferred to each of the plaintiffs as the date of sale contract No. B-1, B-H (Plaintiff), B-I (Plaintiff), B-I (Plaintiff), B-I (Plaintiff), B-U (Plaintiff), B-U (Plaintiff), B-U (Plaintiff), B-U (Plaintiff), B-U (Plaintiff), B-U (Plaintiff), and

2) Determination

A) As seen above, the Mayor of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the public inspection for designation of the BE city development zone in accordance with the Urban Development Act and subordinate statutes in order to designate the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BF as an urban development zone on July 9, 2003. As such, the statutory relocation measures base date to determine persons eligible for relocation measures in this case is July 9, 2003, which is the date of public inspection

B) Therefore, among the 17 buyers, BG, BJ, BK, BN, BN, BO, BP, BU, BX,CC, and the 17 buyers began to reside on the pertinent date stated in the "Date of Report on Acquisition of Ownership and Redemption Date" as of July 9, 2003, which is the legal base date for relocation measures, and BH, BR and BY did not reside in the building in the project area of this case which they own, and BS began to reside on March 8, 202, which is more than the legal base date for relocation measures, but they do not constitute an owner of the building subject to relocation measures under Article 40 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, which is the first 4th day before December 6, 2005, which is the first 4th day before the enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, and thus, they do not constitute an owner of the building subject to relocation measures under Article 80 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act.

C) As to this, the above plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's act of deciding and notifying the person subject to the relocation measures is an administrative disposition and cannot deny the validity of the defendant's selection of the person subject to the relocation measures due to the confirmation and fairness of the above administrative disposition. The defendant, after self-examination of the 17 persons of the above number, selected the person as the person subject to the relocation measures and sold the special supply house of this case. Thus, the above number of

However, Article 78 (1) of the former Public Works Act provides that "a project operator shall establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act by recognizing a person who will lose his base of livelihood as a person subject to relocation measures due to the implementation of a public work project as a person subject to relocation measures, and Article 40 (3) of the former Public Works Act provides that the owner of a non-resident building shall, in principle, be excluded from the person subject to relocation measures. Therefore, even if the person subject to relocation measures as prescribed by the above Act and subordinate statutes is a project operator subject to relocation measures under the former Public Works Act, the scope of the person subject to relocation measures cannot be arbitrarily restricted or expanded in the form of administrative disposition. The defendant is a project operator who is required to establish relocation measures under the former Public Works Act and is selected as a person subject to special supply of an apartment building according to the criteria for expanding the scope of the person subject to relocation measures under the relevant Act and therefore, it cannot be said that the person subject

3) Sub-committee

Therefore, on the premise that the said 17 persons are persons subject to relocation measures, the claim by the said 19 persons seeking the return of unjust enrichment to the Defendant is without merit without further review.

D. Whether Plaintiff H, I.K, L, M,O, P, and Q (8) constitutes a person subject to relocation measures

C. According to the evidence in the attached Form 2 and the transfer and acquisition statement, each number of buyers listed in the corresponding column of the above plaintiff 8 in the attached Table 2 transfer to each of the plaintiffs concerned the rights and obligations of the buyer in each of the sale contracts of this case (Plaintiffs Q (Plaintiffs H), BV (Plaintiffs K, L), BW (Plaintiffs M), BZ (Plaintiffs 0), CA (Plaintiffs P), CB (Plaintiffs 2), and 7). The above number of buyers acquired the ownership of the building located in the business area of this case on each of the date stated in the "acquisition Date of Ownership" column of the attached Table 4 and the "Acquisition Date of Ownership" column of the same Table after acquiring the ownership of the building in the business area of this case from each of the date stated in the "Report Date of Transfer" column of the same Table.

Therefore, seven buyers owned a building in the project area of this case and resided in the building from July 9, 2003 to the date of consultation or the date of adjudication of expropriation of each building, which is the date of legal relocation measures, constitutes a person subject to relocation measures under Article 78 (1) of the former Public Works Act, and accordingly, eight plaintiffs who acquired the status of the buyer from the above buyer is the person subject to relocation measures.

The defendant asserted that the CA of the buyer did not meet the residential requirements, but if the purport of the whole argument is added to the statement No. 8-41 of the evidence No. 8, the defendant started to reside in the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DH owned by the husband of the CA on September 9, 2002 after completing a move-in report on the transfer of DG, which was offered to the business in the instant case, and taken place on April 5, 2006, which was later after March 21, 2006, the defendant deposited the payment for expropriation, and the fact that the CA succeeded to the status of DG as the person subject to relocation measures. According to the above fact of recognition, DG acquired the status as the buyer, and the CA transferred it to the plaintiff as the heir of DG, so the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) Return of unjust enrichment

A) Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act provides for the project operator’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 operator shall be deemed to have established and implemented relocation measures even in cases where he/she supplied a housing site to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to the relevant statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act. The main text of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act provides that the details of relocation measures include basic living facilities, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities, and that the project operator shall bear expenses incurred in supplying a housing site to a person subject to relocation measures. Comprehensively taking account of each of the above provisions, the project operator’s supply of a housing site to a person subject to relocation measures, as in the instant case, is a method of

like this, the basic living facilities stipulated in paragraph (4) of the same Article shall be installed at the expense of the project implementer and provided to those subject to relocation measures.

Furthermore, the main text of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which provides for a project operator’s duty to establish and implement relocation measures, as well as Article 78(1) of the same Act, is a mandatory law that does not exclude the application of the provisions by agreement of the parties or by the project operator’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63089, 63096, Jun. 23, 201). Accordingly, the foregoing Plaintiff 8 constitutes a person subject to relocation measures as stipulated in the former Public Works Act. As such, among the sale price for the above Plaintiffs, the amount equivalent to the cost of installing basic living facilities as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act is null and void as it violates the main sentence of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which is a mandatory law. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the cost of installing basic living facilities to

3. Scope of the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment (eight persons, including plaintiffs H, I, K, L, M,O, P, Q, etc.)

A. Basic legal principles

"Basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions, such as water supply facilities, drainage facilities and other public facilities, etc." under Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act means main facilities, such as roads, water supply and drainage facilities, water supply facilities, electricity, telecommunications facilities, gas, and district heating facilities, under Article 2 subparagraph 8, Article 23 (1) and (6) of the former Housing Act, and Article 24 (4) [Attached Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, i.e., roads, water supply and drainage facilities, electricity supply facilities, electricity supply facilities, telecommunications facilities, communications facilities, district heating facilities, etc., on which a project operator is obligated to install a housing construction project or a housing site development project under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as district heating facilities (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da97355, Jul. 14, 201; 2007Da63089, Jun. 23, 2011).

(b) Methods of calculating unjust enrichment and basic data;

1) In a case where the method of calculating unjust enrichment is a housing supply such as each sale contract in the instant case, apartment construction business operators, or project operators are supplied with housing sites at a price not deducted from the cost of basic living facilities, and sell housing site cost including the sale price. Therefore, the sale price paid by the Plaintiffs should be deemed as including the cost of installing basic living facilities at all without deduction.

With regard to the method of calculation, the amount of unjust enrichment that the defendant must return to the plaintiffs is equivalent to the cost of the basic living facilities for the project of this case, and the amount of each site area for the apartment of this case in which X plaintiffs acquired by the sum of the cost of the basic living facilities for the project of this case, can be calculated by the formula of the "cost supply area" out of the total site area for the project of this case. (1) The cost of the basic living facilities of this case is the sum of the cost of the site for the basic living facilities [1] the total cost of the site of this case. (2) the cost of the site of the basic living facilities of this case is the sum of the cost of the basic living facilities of this case, <

(ii) basic data for calculation;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 9-2, No. 10-1, No. 10-1, and No. 12-1, the entire site area of the instant project area is 891,412.4m, among which 461,165m of the entire site area of the instant project area is 461,165m, the total area to be supplied is 58,618m, and the total area to be retained is 915,312,215,06m as follows. The total project cost related to the creation of the instant housing site among the instant projects

A person shall be appointed.

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the site cost and total project cost of the project of this case are KRW 613,251,730,000, and KRW 923,290,417,000 based on the statements in evidence Nos. 15-2, but considering the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 10-1, 15-1, and No. 15-1, and No. 1, the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant increased the total project cost of this case to KRW 923,290,00, around November 12, 2008; the defendant deliberated on the sale price by holding a review committee around Sep. 2008; the defendant can be recognized that the development cost, sale price, and sale price of this case are KRW 613,251,730,00,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the increase in the project cost was affected by the sale price of this case or around Oct. 17, 2008.

(c) Individual review of whether or not the basic living facilities are the basic living facilities and their expenses;

(a) Costs for road sites;

A) The above plaintiffs asserted that the road size 161,609m (i.e., 162,670m wide road + pedestrian road 2,792m2 - preserved area 3,853m2) in the BE urban development zone constitutes a basic living facility, and thus, KRW 145,563,563,242,580 (=total site cost = KRW 613,251,730,00 + Capital cost + KRW 161,596,415,403) X road size 161,609/ Total business area of KRW 826,954m2 (i.e., total site area of KRW 891,412m2 - size of less than 64,458m2), and land for living facilities below basic living facilities).

B) In light of the facts as seen earlier, the total cost of the site out of the total project cost of the instant project is 605,792,519,237 is as follows. In full view of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 9-2, 10-1 of the total project cost of the instant project, the capital cost for the site cost out of the total project cost of the instant project is 131,084,025,441 won). It is recognized that the total project cost of the instant project is 158,570 square meters and 552 meters for each of the roads and pedestrians newly installed as basic living facilities among the project area of the BE urban development zone is 162,670 square meters and pedestrian road size is 2,792 square meters. However, it is reasonable to calculate the total area of the instant road from 250 square meters to 2,792 square meters for each of the alteration of the area of the instant project to 2500 square meters and 2504m for each of the alteration of the area of the road development plan.25.744.7 meters.

The cost of the road site for ○: 115,749,048,70 won (=605,792,519,237 won for total site x 159,12.4m of the road area corresponding to basic living facilities x 159,12.4m of the road area corresponding to basic living facilities (i.e., 158,570m of road area + 552m of pedestrian road size x 552m of the road): Total project area 832,794.4m of the square (i.e., 891,41,412.4m of the total site area - 58,618m of the preserved area) capital cost for ○: 25,046,283,608 won (i.e., capital cost 131,084,025,241m of the basic living facilities x total project area 832,794m of the business area)

○ Total Amount: 140,795,332,308 won (=115,749,048,700 won + Capital cost 25,046,283,608) The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion

(1) As to this, the defendant asserts that all roads within the BE urban development zone do not constitute a basic living facility because they constitute not a road as an arterial facility but a term, as stipulated in Article 23 of the Housing Act. However, according to Article 57 of the Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction, a group of sites created with approval of a project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act imposes an obligation to install the said site as an arterial facility at a time near the relevant site. In light of the fact that Article 57 of the Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction imposes an obligation to install the said site as an arterial facility, the term roads as stipulated in the regulations on the standards, etc. of housing construction are merely the basis for dividing a housing complex, not a concept compared to an arterial facility. As seen in this case, where multiple housing complexes are established as a project district, the existing roads, etc. surrounding the said project district are deemed to be the main infrastructure within the entire urban development zone, and the roads connected with each complex within the BE urban development zone are not only several roads, but also a main road connected with the entire urban development zone.

(2) In addition, the defendant asserts that the road area is not included in the total project cost, such as road site cost and road packing cost, which are considered below in the free supply area. According to the statement of No. 9-2 (BE district development plan area), it is acknowledged that the whole area of the road area is indicated as the whole free area and there is no compensation area. On the other hand, it is recognized that the whole area of No. 9-3, No. 13-42, No. 11 of the evidence No. 9-3, No. 13-42, and No. 11 of the evidence No. 11 of the evidence No. 9-2, it is recognized that the defendant calculated the total area of the road site cost as the whole area: the cost of the road site cost calculated as the basic project cost, the cost statement (Evidence No. 13-42, No. 13-42, No. 1480, Dec. 14, 200>

(3) Lastly, the Defendant asserts that the retention area of 14,775 square meters should be excluded from the road area. Thus, according to the statement Nos. 12-1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the above DK road is included as "in the process of using it as a road" in the BE area development plan and the execution plan change plan (Evidence No. 12-2) on May 15, 200 in the road area of this case, which was determined as urban planning facilities on May 15, 200 as well as the fact that 25 meters in width and 591 meters in length are installed in the project area of this case, and that the above DK road is not included as "in the process of using it as a road" on the BE area, DK area development plan and the execution plan change plan (Evidence No. 12-2). However, in light of the purport of the statement No. 9-2 and 3 as stated above, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above DK area is not included in the size No. 1654000m of the road area:

(4) Therefore, the defendant's above arguments are without merit.

2) Of the cost of installing infrastructure, the above plaintiffs claim that the cost of installing the main main main infrastructure is 8,142,740,000 won of the cost of installing the main infrastructure, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the above cost was the cost of creating the road connecting the main entrance of the road outside the housing complex and the main entrance outside the housing complex, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the purport of the statement and the entire argument in subparagraph 3, the above main infrastructure opening the main road is deemed to fall under the cost of installing the main infrastructure outside the housing complex, and thus, the above plaintiffs' allegation in this part is without merit.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the evidence Nos. 9-2, 10-1, 10-1, and 8 of the cost for installing energy and telecommunications facilities, the Defendant additionally paid KRW 5,000,000,000 in the difference between the cost for installing electric telecommunications facilities and the cost for installing processed facilities and the cost for installing the said energy and telecommunications facilities. The capital cost for the cost for installing the said energy and telecommunications facilities is 347,585,397, and the total cost of KRW 5,347,585,397 is recognized to be included in the total cost for project. The time of approving the development plan for the instant project is deemed to be general at the time of around 2003, since the undergroundization of electric facilities falls under the cost for installing the basic living facilities according to the regional conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da1083975, May 29, 2014).

4) Among the cost of installing infrastructure, the above plaintiffs claim that the cost of installing other infrastructure corresponds to the cost of creating basic infrastructure. Thus, the above plaintiffs' evidence submitted by the above plaintiffs alone cannot be recognized as the cost of installing arterial facilities, such as roads, water supply and drainage systems, electricity, telecommunications, gas, and district heating facilities, which are obligated to install a housing construction project or a housing site development project pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently. Rather, in full view of the purport of the statement and arguments in subparagraph 7, the above cost of installing a new subway line is only deemed to be the cost for establishing a new subway line 5 lines. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

5) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence No. 10 No. 10 of the sewage treatment charges and the entire arguments, the total project cost can be acknowledged that the sum of KRW 5,200,000,000 of the sewage treatment charges and the capital cost of KRW 125,387,412 is included in the total project cost. The sewage treatment charges are deemed to be the cost for sewage treatment to be discharged into the public sewerage according to the result of the BE urban development project, and it is reasonable to deem that the above sewage treatment charges and the capital cost constitute the cost for installing the basic living facilities.

Since the above plaintiffs claim that the charges for the Cooperation Fund for the Conservation of Ecosystem (178,800,000 won for the Conservation of Ecosystem, charges for the installation of waste disposal facilities, charges for the installation of basic living facilities, 2,183,502,00 won for the construction of basic living facilities among charges for the installation of infrastructure and other charges for the installation of infrastructure, it is difficult to regard the above costs as the installation costs of arterial facilities that are obligated to be installed by the project proprietor who implements the housing construction project or

6) Of the cost of construction, the fact that the outstanding public water supply, sewage water supply, and the Defendant spent an outstanding amount of KRW 9,920,387,00 in connection with the instant project, KRW 899,00 in wastewater water supply and KRW 12,49,07,60 in aggregate of KRW 167,00 in water supply and water supply and KRW 167,00 in total is not disputed between the parties, and is included in the water supply and sewerage facilities as a main facility, and thus, the above cost constitutes the cost of installing the basic living facilities.

In addition, although capital costs for the above costs are not clearly calculated, considering the overall purport of Gap evidence 10-1 and the whole purport of arguments, it is recognized that the capital costs for creation costs of KRW 150,277,66,114 are 6,461,057,221. Thus, capital costs for the above costs are 537,323,50 won (=12,497,602,600 + 6,461,057,221 won: 150,27,666,114).

7) Among the cost of construction, the plaintiffs alleged that the cost of construction for road packing works includes 22,168,543,00 won of the cost of construction for road packing works included in the cost of construction for basic facilities. Thus, according to the evidence No. 11, the defendant calculated 18,442,358,914 won of the cost of construction for road packing and constructed construction for the above facts. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the above facts, the above construction cost can be acknowledged as having been actually borne by the defendant through consultation with the local government, etc. which is the obligor under the Housing Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, or the contents of the approved project plan, or the cost of construction for the roads which are the main facilities to be installed when the defendant implements the project in this case under the Housing Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes, the above construction cost constitutes the cost of construction for the basic facilities for public works under the old Act. Furthermore, although the capital cost of the above cost is not clearly calculated, the statement and purport of evidence No. 10-1, creation cost,27,67,6146,1467,2167 won.24

8) Of the cost of construction, the above Plaintiffs claim that the total design cost, contract cost, secondary facilities, supervision cost, and incidental cost, 30,000,000, design cost (telecommunications) cost, 4,024,826,000, contract cost (telecommunications), and installation cost (telecommunications), KRW 2,582,250,00,000, and KRW 66,625,625,000, supervision cost (telecommunications) and KRW 132,49,00,000, total of KRW 350,00,000, and capital cost for this constitutes the cost of installation of basic living facilities. We examine each of the following individually:

A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and arguments by Gap evidence No. 10-1, the total project cost, including KRW 30,000,000,00 as the design cost for the expansion of roads between the IC and the southwest-west area, may be acknowledged as having been included in the total project cost. However, the roads connecting BE areas with the IC cannot be deemed as the roads connecting the main entrances of the housing complex with the roads outside the housing complex, and as such, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of statement and arguments by Gap's contract costs, dual facilities (telecommunications), supervision costs (telecommunications), Gap evidence No. 10-1, the total project cost includes KRW 155,368,809, KRW 2,582,250,000, capital cost for these facilities (telecommunications) and capital cost for these facilities (telecommunications) and KRW 350,958,718, KRW 132,449,00,00, and capital cost for these facilities (telecommunications) and KRW 5,108,592, the contract cost constitutes the cost for construction and electrical construction such as traffic signal, etc., the cost for construction and electrical construction, communications facilities, urban gas pipelines, temporary road traffic safety facility supervision cost, etc., and the cost for construction of telecommunications facilities (telecommunications), which corresponds to the cost for construction of telecommunications facilities (telecommunications), which corresponds to the cost for construction of telecommunications facilities (telecommunications).

C) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence 10-1 of this facility (telecommunications) as well as the purport of the entire arguments, it may be acknowledged that the total project cost includes 45,325,000 won including the total amount of the construction cost for electric power generation, control team safety diagnosis fees, various light safety diagnosis fees, traffic signal light construction cost, traffic signal light construction cost, traffic signal light-use inspection cost, traffic signal light construction cost, utility model fee for electric power lighting, traffic signal light, and traffic signal light construction cost, and capital cost of 1,48,034 won, and the above cost is deemed to constitute the construction cost for the construction of roads and electricity, etc. which are arterial facilities. Therefore, this part of the cost constitutes the installation cost of basic living facilities.

The above plaintiffs asserted that the total amount of electricity rates of KRW 21,300,000 for each facility among these facilities (telecommunications) and capital costs of KRW 861,774 are also included in the cost of basic living facilities. However, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 9, 10 (including all of the virtual numbers) is insufficient to recognize that the above costs are costs for installing roads and electric facilities, which are arterial facilities, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Thus, this part of the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

D) Since the above plaintiffs asserted that the incidental cost is included in the installation cost of basic living facilities of the 350,000 Won per unit cost (telecommunications), it is insufficient to recognize the above cost as the cost for installing the main facilities such as roads and electricity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(ix) direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, and general management expenses;

The fact that the direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, and general management expenses are calculated by the following methods, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each statement of evidence Nos. 10-1 and 16.

(1) Direct labor cost = (Land cost + land cost + creation cost + infrastructure installation cost) x0.35%

(2) Sales cost = (Land cost + land cost + creation cost + cost of infrastructure installation + direct construction cost + relocation cost) ¡¿ 0.08%

(3) General management expenses = (Site site cost + development cost + direct personnel expenses + relocation expenses) + direct expenses incurred in installing basic living facilities under the former Public Works Act out of the total project expenses for the instant project ¡¿ 0.98% of the total project expenses for the instant project, that is, direct expenses incurred in installing basic living facilities under the former Public Works Act, namely, site expenses for basic living facilities, site charges, development expenses, and infrastructure installation expenses, which are counted as direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, and general expenses that the Defendant appropriated by multiplying the aforementioned respective ratio by the construction expenses for basic living facilities under the former Public Works Act.

D. Calculation of return of unjust enrichment

(i) Costs of establishing basic living facilities in an urban development project;

(a) Aggregate of expenses for road sites, expenses for installation of energy and communications facilities, sewage treatment charges, excellent water pipes, sewage pipes, water supply and sewerage construction works, road packing construction costs, contract construction costs, double facilities (telecommunications), supervision costs, and capital costs for these facilities: 186,536,276,824 won;

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Direct personnel expenses: 159,173,859, 859, 614 won in the aggregate of road sites, expenses for installation of energy and communications facilities, sewage treatment charges, excellent water pipes, sewage and sewerage systems, water supply and sewerage systems, road packing construction expenses, contract construction expenses, dual facilities (telecommunications), supervision expenses, and X0.35% in the aggregate of these facilities (telecommunications), excluding capital expenses, = 57,108,508 won in the aggregate of these facilities (telecommunications);

(c) Sales costs: 159,730,968,122 won (159,173,859,69,69,69,69,68,614 + 557,108,508,508), excluding capital costs, for road sites, for the installation of energy and communications facilities, sewage treatment charges, sewage treatment charges, excellent water pipes, sewage and sewerage water supply and sewerage systems, water supply and sewerage construction costs, road packing construction costs, electrical construction costs, double-facilities (telecommunications), supervision costs, and direct personnel costs (telecommunications), 0.08% = 127,784,774: excluding capital costs, for the installation of road sites, for the installation of energy and communications facilities, sewage treatment charges, excellent water pipes, water supply and sewerage systems, road packing costs, construction costs, installation costs, supervision costs, and direct personnel costs (telecommunications), for the facilities (telecommunications) and direct personnel costs, for 159,709,786,3785%6,365

(e) Aggregate of costs for establishing basic living facilities: 186,536,276,824 won + 557,108,508 won +127,784,774 won + 1,565,363,487 won = 188,786,53,593

2) According to the cost of installing basic living facilities per one kilometer of a cost supply area, the cost of installing basic living facilities per one kilometer of a cost supply area is KRW 409,368 (=the total sum of the cost of installing basic living facilities 188,786,53,593 / the cost of installing basic living facilities / the area of a cost supply area of 461,165 meters).

3) Calculation of restitution of unjust enrichment

A) First, as to the amount of unjust enrichment, the amount of unjust enrichment that the defendant should return to the above plaintiffs shall be the amount obtained by multiplying the cost of installing basic living facilities per 1m2 party by the area of the site of the special supplied house that the above plaintiffs purchased, and thus, the amount of unjust enrichment in the attached Form 5 shall be the amount of money as stated in the "amount of prize in the attached Form 5

B) Next, with respect to the starting point of calculating interest or delay damages, the above plaintiffs sought legal interest from the payment date of each final purchase price as to the defendant. However, with respect to the scope of return of unjust enrichment, Article 748 of the Civil Act applies to the beneficiary in good faith, the interest received in the case of the beneficiary in bad faith is liable to return with interest added to the beneficiary in bad faith, and the beneficiary in bad faith bears the burden of proof as to the fact that the beneficiary in bad faith is the beneficiary in bad faith, and this " bad faith" refers to the recognition of holding one's own interest without legal cause, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the holding of such interest constitutes the requirements of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, namely, the existence of the existence of the existence of the existence of the legal cause for the obligation to return unjust enrichment, and the evidence presented by the above plaintiffs alone is not sufficient to prove that the defendant is the beneficiary in bad faith at the time of the filing of the lawsuit against the above plaintiffs as the beneficiary in bad faith, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant was not in bad faith beneficiary at the above.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 25, 2010 to November 26, 2015, which is the date of a ruling of the political party, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment, to the date of full payment, as to each of the relevant amounts as stated in the "amount of the prize in the attached Table 5 of the prize in the attached Table 5" and each of the above amounts.

4. Conclusion

If so, 8 claims of Plaintiff H, I, K, L, M,O, P, and Q are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims of Plaintiff 19 must be dismissed for the reason that they are reasonable.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the above plaintiffs H, I, K, L, M,O, P, and Q 8 is unfair. Accordingly, the part of the defendant's appeal against the above plaintiffs is accepted, and the part against the defendant who ordered payment to the above plaintiffs in excess of the above recognition scope is revoked, and the above plaintiffs' claim against the above plaintiffs in the judgment of first instance shall be dismissed. The part against nine persons, such as plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, J, and N, among the judgment of first instance, are inappropriate, and the part against the above plaintiffs in the judgment of first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the part against the above plaintiffs in the judgment of first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the part against the above plaintiffs in the judgment against the defendant is all revoked, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff H, I, K, L, M,O, P, Q, and all remaining appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Jong-Un only

Judges Kim Jae-ho

Judges Kim Gung-han

1) In cases where a house is supplied under Article 41-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act amended on February 29, 2008, the same room is required to install basic living facilities.

is assessed in common.

2) According to Gap evidence 10-1, 608,691,852,057 won, which is the sum of the site cost of KRW 605,792,519,237 and site charges of KRW 2,899,32,820,057

one capital cost is 131,596,415,403 won, and capital cost for land charges is 503,297,809 won and expenses for farmland preservation charges.

The capital cost of KRW 512,389,962 for the cost of creating physical forest resources is the sum of KRW 9,092,153 for the cost of creating physical forest resources, and the cost of capital for KRW 605,792,519,237 for the cost of land.

131,084,025,441 won derived from deducting 512,389,962 won from above 131,596,415,403 won.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.