Plaintiff 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Branch, Attorney Lee Dong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Attorney Choi Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 19, 2013

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Gahap1146 Decided April 13, 2012

1. The judgment of the first instance, including a claim that has been changed in exchange at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. It is confirmed that the sales price obligations pursuant to the sales contract for the housing site of both the plaintiffs (excluding the plaintiff who retired from office) and the plaintiff (2) against the defendant of the succeeding intervenor 2 in Yangju-si, Busan-dong, Sejong-dong, So-dong, So-dong, So-dong, So-dong, So-dong, Goamdong, Goamamamamamamb, Dong, Dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Go Dong-dong, Go Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Yang Dong-dong, Man-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and

B. The Defendant shall pay 1,908,944 won to the Intervenor 1 who succeeded to the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) and 5% per annum from October 30, 2012 to October 17, 2014, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

C. All of the claims by the plaintiffs (excluding the plaintiff, and the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 4's successor 5's successor 1 and the plaintiff 4's successor 1, the successor 3 and the plaintiff 14's successor 4 are dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of litigation, the part arising between the plaintiffs (excluding the plaintiff who withdrawn) and the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 4's successor 4's successor 1 shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the above plaintiff successor 10, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant. The part arising between the plaintiff 8's successor 3, the plaintiff 14 and the defendant's successor 4 shall be borne by the above plaintiff successor 5.

3. The above Section 1. B above may be provisionally executed.

1. It is confirmed that the sales price obligations pursuant to the sales contract for the housing sites of both the plaintiffs (excluding the plaintiff, the same as the plaintiff) and the plaintiff (the plaintiff) against the defendant 2 by the succeeding intervenor 5 in Yangju-si, Busan-dong, Sejong-dong, So-dong, So-dong, So-dong, So-dong, So-dong, Goamdong, Goamamdong, amamamamamb, Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Go-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, and Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Dong-dong, and Man-dong, Yang

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4's successor 1, the plaintiff 3, and the plaintiff 8's successor 4 to the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 14's successor 4 the corresponding amount stated in the "amount of claim" in the "amount of claim" in the "amount of claim" in the "amount of claim" in the "amount of claim" in the attached Table 1 attached to the above table to the service date of the copy of the application for amendment of the claim as of July 15, 2013 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors falling under the above revoked part are dismissed, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The development plan was designated on December 30, 2004 as the area prearranged for housing site development (hereinafter “instant project district”). The Defendant, as the project implementer for the instant project district, was approved on March 30, 2007 under Article 207-100 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on March 30, 2007, was designated as the prearranged area (hereinafter “instant housing site development project”) by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2009-837, Sept. 3, 2009, the designation and development plan of the prearranged area was modified on several occasions, after obtaining approval from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on Sep. 3, 2009, the modification of the prearranged area (III), development plan (4j), modification of the development plan (2j), and the modification of the implementation plan (hereinafter “the instant housing site development project”).

B. The defendant, as measures for relocation of those who lose their base of livelihood due to the expropriation of the housing or land owned by the housing site development project of this case (hereinafter "persons subject to measures for relocation"), agreed to specially supply the housing site to be developed in the project district of this case, and entered into a contract for sale of the unsettled housing site (hereinafter "each contract for sale in this case"). The plaintiffs succeeded to the rights and obligations from those who entered into the contract for sale in this case, and the plaintiffs succeeded to the rights and obligations from some plaintiffs after the institution of the lawsuit of this case (hereinafter "the aforementioned buyers, plaintiffs and their successors," without distinguishing them).

C. The Defendant determined the sale price of the housing site to be specially supplied to the person subject to the relocation measures and the sale price of the housing site to be supplied to the general consumers as follows. In the process, around January 2010, the Defendant provided guidance that the sale price is below 80% of the development cost of the instant project district, while the supply price is below 80% of the development cost of the instant project district, and as regards the area exceeding 265 square meters, the appraisal price was determined.

(i) ordinary consumers;

According to Article 13-2(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23113, Aug. 30, 201) and Article 22(1) [Attached Table 3] of the Guidelines for Processing of Housing Site Development Business based thereon, a single house construction site in the Seoul Metropolitan Area as in this case shall be supplied at the appraisal price. The defendant supplied a consumer who is not a person subject to relocation measures at the appraisal price of the relevant housing site, and the defendant supplied the housing site at the appraisal price in fact.

2) Persons subject to relocation measures

The Defendant determined the amount of special supply at the price calculated in accordance with Article 17 of the Rules on the Establishment and Implementation of Relocation Measures (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules on the Relocation Measures”), which is the Defendant’s internal regulations, to the person subject to relocation measures, and the contents of Article 17 of the said Rules

A person shall be appointed.

The Defendant calculated the creation cost of the instant housing site development project as KRW 1389,276 per square meter by aggregating site cost, development cost, direct personnel expenses, relocation measures, sales expenses, general management expenses, capital expenses, and other expenses in accordance with the calculation table of housing site development cost according to the attached Table of Article 11(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 376, Aug. 30, 201); then, pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules on Measures for Relocation Measures, the average supply cost of the housing site for migrants shall be determined as KRW 1,105,81 per square meter; the above average supply rate shall be applied to the portion not exceeding 265 square meters among migrants; however, with regard to the portion exceeding 265 square meters, the unit supply price per unit area shall be determined by multiplying the unit area by a separate difference in consideration of the individual location, form, surrounding circumstances, etc. of the housing site for sale purpose.

D. The Defendant concluded the instant sales contract with the Plaintiffs in the amount indicated in the “sale Price” column in the attached Form 2 List, which is the amount calculated by the above method. The Plaintiffs paid each of the money indicated in the “sale Price” column in the attached Form 1 as the respective sale price in the instant case to the Defendant up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including, if any, various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 17, 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The Defendant’s special supply of the housing site to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the instant sales contract is implemented as measures for relocation under Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 2011; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”). As such, the calculation of each of the instant sales prices is also governed by Article 78(4) of the same Act and the cost of installing basic living facilities shall be borne by the Defendant. Therefore, the portion of each of the instant sales prices in excess of the legitimate sales price is null and void in violation of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act, which is a mandatory law.

The legitimate sale price of a resettled housing site shall be calculated by the method of [total Project Costs (Costs for Installation of Basic Living Facilities) / the oil supply area / the sale price x the sale price. The plaintiffs paid each amount indicated in the column for the "term payment" in the attached table of claim No. 1 to the defendant as the sale price of the plaintiffs (excluding the plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeedings). The obligation of each sale price under the instant sales contract to the defendant under the attached table No. 1 to the plaintiffs (excluding the plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeedings) does not exceed the amount stated in the "reasonable balance of sale price" in the attached table of claim No. 1 to the defendant, and the defendant shall return the corresponding amount stated in the "request No. 1" column of the claim No. 1 to the succeeding intervenors 1, 3, and 8 of the plaintiff (Withdrawal) and 4 of the succeeding intervenors

3. Consumed legal doctrine

Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act provides for the project implementer's duty to establish and implement relocation measures, and the proviso to Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that the project implementer shall be deemed to have established and implemented relocation measures even in cases where he/she supplies housing sites or houses to persons subject to relocation measures under the 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 the basic living facilities according to the relevant local conditions such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities

Comprehensively taking account of the contents, purpose, etc. of the above provisions, the project implementer’s special supply of housing sites or houses to those subject to relocation measures pursuant to the proviso of Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act is a method of relocation measures that a project implementer may choose based on delegation of Article 78(1) of the former Public Works Act. Therefore, in the case of special supply, it is reasonable to deem that the project implementer should install basic living facilities under Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act at the cost of the project implementer and provide them to those subject to relocation measures, as in the case of providing the settlement site. This constitutes a mandatory law that cannot

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, “basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities” of the said provision refers to roads, water supply and drainage facilities, electric facilities, telecommunications facilities, gas facilities, or district heating facilities, which are installed by a project operator who implements a housing construction project or a housing site development project under the relevant statutes, such as Article 23 of the Housing Act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63089, Jun. 23, 201).

Therefore, if the person subject to the relocation measures pays the Defendant, who is the project executor, the basic cost of the living facilities, by including the cost of the 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 the 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, the Defendant is obligated to return the

4. Calculating a legitimate sale price and amount of unjust gains;

A. Determination on the method of calculation

As seen earlier, as determined by the Defendant’s standard for the unit price of sale of the instant resettled housing site in accordance with the rules on the relocation measures, the unit price of the instant resettled housing site is determined as “the development cost” and the sale price of the instant resettled housing site is calculated by deducting the installation cost of basic living facilities from the amount based on the total project cost - the relocation expenses). As such, the scope of unjust enrichment is reasonable by adding the installation cost of basic living facilities, which the Defendant did not deduct based on

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant informed the Plaintiffs of the fact that the portion exceeding 265 square meters is supplied as a general appraisal price per piece of land in accordance with the rules on the relocation measures, etc., and in fact, the portion exceeding 265 square meters is calculated at a discounted price up to 265 square meters, and the portion exceeding 265 square meters is calculated as an appraisal price, and is limited to 265 square meters for the land subject to special supply as a relocation measures by setting the sale price for the portion exceeding 265 square meters as an appraisal price. In addition, the Plaintiffs appears to have concluded each sale contract in this case upon knowing such circumstances. Therefore, the Defendant’s provision of the portion exceeding 265 square meters to the Plaintiffs, who are the persons subject to relocation measures, does not provide relocation measures, but is the same as the portion supplied to the general public. Therefore, it is reasonable to include the installation cost of basic living facilities equivalent to the portion exceeding the above portion in excess at a reasonable sale price (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da23747, Feb. 13, 2014).

Therefore, a reasonable sale price under each sales contract of this case shall be calculated by adding the amount calculated by multiplying the sales price per 1 square meter less than 265 square meter by the total cost of housing site development (excluding relocation expenses) less than the supply area not exceeding 265 square meters, and the amount calculated by multiplying the appraisal price per 1 square meter by the area exceeding 265 square meters.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the difference should be recognized as unjust enrichment by comparing the amount calculated by subtracting the basic facilities installation cost from the appraisal price, rather than the cost of creating a housing site, in determining whether the defendant obtained unjust enrichment from the plaintiffs, since the housing site was sold in general in accordance with the appraisal price in the case of general sale, not the special supply according to the relocation plan.

However, as long as the Defendant concluded a supply contract with a supply price separately determined according to the contents of the rules on relocation measures, rather than an appraisal as seen above, if the supply price of the above calculated housing site includes the cost of basic living facilities, then the Defendant’s unjust enrichment should be deemed established. The supply price of the above housing site does not vary solely because the cost of basic living facilities does not reach the cost of the creation of the housing site. In this case where the supply price of the housing site is not determined on the basis of appraisal price, the cost of basic living facilities should not be calculated based on the supply price of the housing site equivalent to the appraisal price. The Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

5. Calculation of specific amount of unjust gains;

(a) The housing site preparation cost;

According to Article 11 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the housing site development cost of the instant housing site development project is calculated by aggregating the site cost, development cost, direct personnel expenses, relocation measures, sales expenses, general management expenses, capital expenses, and other expenses. According to the evidence No. 3, the total project cost of the instant housing site development project is KRW 4,987,015,653,00 as follows: (a) the total project cost of the instant housing site development project is KRW 4,987,05,653,00 as stated below; and (b) the area of the housing site to be supplied with compensation is KRW 3,589,436 square meters out of the total area of 7,046,222 square meters (the Plaintiff claimed that the area of the housing site to be supplied with compensation is KRW 3,770,89 square meters; however, it is reasonable to determine the amount of the housing site to be supplied with compensation after the Defendant calculated and stated the development cost in Category No. 4.

2,288,58,588,874,00 creation cost of 2,08,060,00 direct labor cost of 49,687,79,79,000 direct labor cost of 2,15% relocation countermeasure cost of 24,029,295,000 indirect labor cost of 10,488,878,878,000 general labor cost of 100,000 general labor cost of 1,457,381,381,000.29% of total labor cost of 10,457,206,000,000 capital cost of 503,457,622,220,2005.63% of other expenses of 2,622,200,000,000.

However, in full view of the purport of the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the relocation measure cost is the amount calculated by calculating business losses, etc. arising from supplying migrantss' housing site at prices lower than the cost of creating the housing site. This part of the cost is not the actual cost of creating the housing site in this case, and is excluded from the cost of creating the housing site in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s total project cost, which is the premise for calculating the unjust enrichment in this case, is KRW 4,962,986,358,00 (=4,987,015,653,00-24,029,295,000).

(b) Calculation of costs of installing basic living facilities;

The cost of installing the basic living facilities is the sum of the following amount: (b) the cost of creating the living facilities.

The site cost for basic living facilities included in the main sentence = Total site cost 】 (the installation area/total project area of basic living facilities) 】 (the direct personnel cost, sales and general management cost, and capital cost which falls under the basic living facilities site cost and creation cost among the capital cost caused by the creation cost for basic living facilities.

(c) Calculation of specific costs of installing basic living facilities;

(a) Costs of sites for basic facilities;

A) Recognized site area for basic living facilities: As seen earlier, the basic living facilities are “arterial facilities, such as roads and water supply and drainage facilities, electric facilities, telecommunications facilities, gas facilities or district heating facilities, which are to be installed by a housing construction project operator or a housing site development project operator pursuant to related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 23 of the Housing Act,” and according to the aforementioned evidence, the area of the site for basic living facilities corresponding thereto is recognized as the area of 1,211,07

B) Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs asserts that the size of the energy supply facilities and the power supply facilities (2,534 square meters) should be included in the site area of the basic living facilities. However, Article 2 Subparag. 8 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405, Feb. 3, 2009; hereinafter “former Housing Act”) provides that “arterial facilities” refer to facilities connecting the key facilities within a housing complex (where two or more housing complexes are simultaneously developed, referring to each housing complex), such as roads, water supply systems, electrical facilities, gas facilities, communications facilities, and district heating facilities, etc. to the key facilities located outside the relevant housing complex: Provided, That in the case of gas facilities, communications facilities, and district heating facilities, the key facilities within a housing complex are included in the installation and cost-bearing of the facilities, and Article 23 of the same Act provides that “a person who supplies electricity, communications, gas, or heating in the relevant area bears the cost of installation and cost-bearing of the facilities.” According to the foregoing, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the costs of installation and heating facilities are not acceptable in principle.

C) The Defendant asserts that Article 24(4) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act limits the scope of roads, which are arterial facilities, to the extent of the exceeding 200 square meters of the total area of the road, and that only part of the total area of the road should be recognized as a site for basic living facilities. However, a road, which is an arterial facility under a housing construction project or a housing site development project to which the former Housing Act applies, is in charge of connecting the entrance of a housing complex located within the project district and other roads located outside the project district, regardless of the length or width of the road, can be deemed as an essential facility for the achievement of functions of the housing complex, etc. and for the passage of residents, regardless of the length or width of the road. As such, the project undertaker is obligated to install the roads in accordance with the former Housing Act and subordinate statutes and the housing site development project plan or housing site development project plan based thereon (see Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da4559, Oct. 24, 2013; 2012Da97413).

(d) site costs for basic living facilities;

Therefore, the cost of the site for basic living facilities is KRW 393,353,354,346 (=the total cost of the site 2,288,58,874,000 x the area of the site for basic living facilities 1,211,076 m2/ the total project area 7,046,222 m22 m2, hereinafter the same).

(ii) cost of creating basic living facilities;

A) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the individual construction cost of living facilities is recognized as constituting 510,96,612,288 as indicated below. Determination of the specific items is as follows.

Expenses for the installation of Serial Items 15,740,00,00 excellent water supply facilities 15,740,0002,29,200 wastewater treatment facilities 18,891,000,000 April 85,15,156,000 79,000 790,000 7,000 790,067,000 7,000 7,000 7,0667,000 7,065,000 768,67,000 967,205,000 967, 067,000 96, 10,75,000 96, 207, 207,709, 19,710, 2701, 301, 94,2701, 94,01,010 structures of water supply facilities

Note 2) Earth *

(b) Water purification facilities, heavy waterworks;

The Defendant asserts that water quality purification facilities and mid-water treatment facilities do not constitute a basic living facility because they are not “severves” facilities connected to existing facilities outside the housing complex to which the migrants belong. However, the Defendant asserts that mid-water treatment facilities refer to facilities individually or locally treating wastewater generated from individual facilities or development projects, etc. without discharging it as a public sewerage system; water quality purification facilities can be interpreted as facilities to improve the water quality of rivers by purifying sewerage water as a kind of “water treatment facilities” under Article 41-2(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act; ② Under Article 9 of the former Act on Promotion of and Support for Water Reuse (amended by Act No. 10359, Jun. 8, 2010) the Defendant and public enterprises were obligated to install the housing site development project at least 60,000 square meters in total; (3) the Defendant’s assertion that the construction of the housing site development project is not a basic living facility for the development of the housing site in this case’s housing site development project.

(C) water, sewerage charges;

Although the Defendant asserts that the water supply and drainage charges are not an arterial facility for the installation of main facilities connected to water supply and drainage facilities outside the housing complex within the housing complex of the instant project district, the water supply and drainage systems are stipulated as the basic living facilities in Article 41-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act. In light of the content and purport of the former Public Works Act, only the “arterial facilities” which connect the facilities outside the housing complex within the housing complex cannot be deemed as the basic living facilities. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

D) Incidental construction expenses;

In the case of appurtenant construction cost, there is no material that is the construction cost incurred in relation to the construction of basic facilities, but in this case, the defendant also recognized that the amount equivalent to the ratio of the area of the basic facilities to the total site area is included in the cost of the construction of basic facilities (8 pages of preparatory documents dated January 30, 2012), and therefore, the amount is subject to that.

(e) investigation and design costs, final and conclusive survey costs, and creation supplementary costs;

First of all, in relation to the investigation and design cost and the final survey cost, the defendant asserts that the above cost is the cost incurred in formulating the housing site development plan or the implementation plan, and the design cost of roads and water supply and sewerage systems is included in the construction cost concerned, such as water supply system works, and thus, it does not constitute the cost of the basic living facilities. According to the records in Section B, the defendant calculated the total construction cost including the above cost and calculated the sales price of this case based on the above cost, it is recognized that the defendant calculated the total construction cost including the above cost and calculated the sales price of this case based on the above cost, and the research, design cost and final survey cost may be disbursed related to the basic living facilities at the stage of the development plan of the housing site or the implementation plan. Since there is no material to deem the design cost of roads

In the case of the cost of building units, the defendant asserts that the cost of building units is not the cost of building basic living facilities since the cost of building and operating the living room is calculated, and there is no evidence to prove that the cost of building units is related to the construction of basic living facilities, and this part is not included in the cost of building basic living facilities.

(f)a structure hole ( retaining wall);

In addition, the Defendant asserts that the retaining wall is a facility installed in a buffer green belt and not a facility for water supply and drainage. However, according to the overall purport of the entry and pleading of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 above, the retaining wall is a part of the construction of a road or a site, and there is no evidence to deem that the said structure public facility is irrelevant to the basic living facilities such as a road, etc. among the above costs, it is reasonable to regard that the portion equivalent to the ratio of the area of the basic living facilities installed in the total project area as the installation cost of the basic living facilities is the cost of the living facilities.

(g) Costs for opening main roads;

The plaintiff asserts that the construction cost of main roads shall be included in the construction cost of basic living facilities of 787,100,000,000 won.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 16, the defendant, based on the measures to improve metropolitan transportation pursuant to the former Special Act on the Management of Metropolitan Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the "former Metropolitan Transport Act"), was to bear the construction expenses for the construction of the above main road. The above construction expenses were used for the expansion of the main roads of national highways No. 3, national highways No. 56, old map No. 56, old map No. 56, old map No. 48, etc., and the above roads constitute metropolitan roads connected to the inside and outside of the project district of this case.

In light of the relevant provisions of the former Metropolitan Transport Act including Article 11 subparag. 1, the former part of Article 11-4(1), Article 2 subparag. 1, and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Metropolitan Transport Act, the charges for metropolitan transport facilities only imposed in a metropolitan area are required for the construction and improvement of the metropolitan transport facilities in a metropolitan area, and thus the Mayor/Do Governor imposes on the project operator the expenses incurred in increasing the value of the housing sites and housing in the metropolitan area. Furthermore, the charges for metropolitan transport facilities cannot be deemed as falling under the cost for the installation of basic living facilities to be provided to the person subject to the relocation measures who is provided with the housing site for relocation measures in a metropolitan area, even if the said person gains profits from the construction and improvement of the metropolitan transport facilities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da203799, Sept. 12, 2013). Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(iii) the portion corresponding to the cost of installing basic living facilities, such as direct labor cost;

If the purport of the entire pleading in the statement No. 1, it can be seen that the sales contract in this case is calculated as follows.

The direct labor cost = (land cost + creation cost + direct labor cost + direct labor cost) = (land cost + direct labor cost + direct labor cost) ¡¿ sales ratio (0.24%) general management cost = (land cost + creation cost + direct labor cost + direct labor cost) ¡¿ (29%) general management cost = (29%) general management cost = (land cost + creation cost + direct labor cost + direct labor cost) ¡¿ (5.63%) x capital cost ratio (5.63%) 】 or other expenses = (land cost + direct labor cost + direct labor cost) 】 or other expense ratio (0.06%).

According to the above calculation method, the cost of establishing basic living facilities included in the direct labor cost, etc. is total of KRW 140,244,713,964 (=10,457,840,743 + ②2,207,604,596 + ③ ③ KRW 21,064,227,913 + ④ KRW 105,963,139,458 + KRW 551,90,254).

(1) Costs for installing basic living facilities included in direct labor costs: 10,457,840,743 won a week.

= Direct labor cost = 49,687,79,00 won x 904,319,966,634 won x 393,353,354,346 won for the site for basic living facilities + 510,96,612,288 won for the creation of basic living facilities) / 4,296,648,874,000 won (i.e., site cost of KRW 2,288,58,588,874,00 + creation cost of KRW 2,08,060,000)

(2) Costs of installing basic living facilities included in sales costs: 2,207,604,596 won.

= 10,488,878,00 won x 914,777,807,377 won / 4,346,336,673,00 won

**914,77,807,377 = Cost for the site of basic living facilities + KRW 393,353,354,346 + Cost for the creation of basic living facilities + KRW 510,96,612,288 + Cost for the installation of basic living facilities out of direct labor cost + KRW 10,457,840,743

** KRW 4,346,336,67,673,00 = Land cost of KRW 2,288,588,874,00 + Creation cost of KRW 2,008,060,000 + Direct Labor Cost of KRW 49,687,79,000

(3) Costs for basic living facilities included in general management expenses: 21,064,227,913 won.

= General management expenses = 100,081,381,00 won ¡¿ 914,777,807,377 won/4,346,336,673,00 won

(4) Costs of installing basic living facilities included in capital costs: 105,963,139,458 won.

= 503,457,206,00 won ¡¿ 914,777,807,377 won/4,346,336,673,00 won

(5) Costs of establishing basic living facilities included in other costs: 51,901,254 won.

= Other expenses = 2,622,220,00 won ¡¿ 914,77,807,377 won/4,346,336,673,00 won

The Defendant asserted that indirect expenses, such as direct personnel expenses, sales expenses, general management expenses, capital expenses, and other expenses, are not expenses required for the installation of basic living facilities, but there is no evidence to acknowledge them. According to the records in subparagraphs 1 through 3, the Defendant calculated the total construction cost including the above expenses and calculated the sales price in this case based on them. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the part of the ratio of the area of the basic living facilities to the total project area of the above expenses is the cost of the basic living facilities. The above assertion is without merit.

4) Total sum of cost of basic living facilities

The cost of installing the basic living facilities in the project district of this case shall be KRW 1,04,54,56,354,346, and ② the cost of creating the basic living facilities, ③ the cost of installing the basic living facilities, ③ the cost of installing the basic living facilities, such as direct labor cost, and KRW 140,244,713,964,680,598, including the cost of installing the basic living facilities.

(d) Amount of lawful sale price;

The legitimate unit sale price for the portion not exceeding 265§³ to be paid by the legitimate Plaintiffs to the Defendant according to the instant sales contract is KRW 1,091,653 per 1 kilometer [the total project cost: KRW 4,962,962,986,358,600; KRW 1,04,564,680; KRW 580; KRW 1,589,436 square meters for the cost of establishing basic living facilities]; or KRW 3,589,436 square meters for the cost of supply];

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the actual unit price (265 square meters or less) for each Plaintiff, which applied to each sales contract of this case, was determined by reflecting a certain gap rate according to the individual location, market price, etc. of the land sold in the sale site for migrants calculated by the Defendant (1,105,81 square meters or less). According to the evidence No. 18, as to the portion below 265 square meters of the relevant land in a sales contract concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, it can be recognized that the difference rate in the entry in attached Table 3 is applied to the portion below 265 square meters of the relevant land in the sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the legitimate unit price for the portion below 265 square meters among the housing sites supplied by the Plaintiffs is the amount calculated by multiplying the relevant difference by the pertinent unit price and 265 square meters of the supplied area (where the area to be supplied is less than 265 square meters, the relevant supplied area is equal to the amount indicated in attached Table 3.

If Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 18 added the purport of the entire pleadings, among the plaintiffs, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) where the portion exceeding 265 square meters is sold in excess of 265 square meters; (b) the amount indicated in the “value per 1 square meter” column, which is the appraisal price for the relevant land, is applied to the portion exceeding 265 square meters; and (c) the amount of sale in excess of 265 square meters

Therefore, the legitimate sale price of the Plaintiffs is the sum of the legitimate sale price with regard to the portion not exceeding 265m2 and the sale price exceeding 265m2, which is the same as the amount indicated in the “justifiable sale price” column of the above Table.

E. Determination of unjust enrichment or the plaintiffs' remaining sales price debt amount

Therefore, the portion of the sales price under the sales contract of this case which exceeds the legitimate sales price is null and void in violation of Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act. The amount of the remainder of the sales price to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant under the sales contract of this case is the amount obtained by deducting the fixed payment amount from the legitimate sales price, and is identical to the amount stated in the column of the "amount of due sales price"

In addition, in the case of Plaintiff 4’s succeeding intervenor 1, the Plaintiff paid KRW 324,068,380 as the sale price in excess of the legitimate sale price by fully paying KRW 5,85,170 on October 30, 2012 (Evidence A-4). The Defendant is obligated to pay to the said succeeding intervenor 1 a total of KRW 324,068,380 as the sale price in excess of the legitimate sale price (Evidence A-4). On the other hand, the Defendant did not pay to the Intervenor 1 the sale price in excess of 1,908,944, corresponding to the difference between the legitimate sale price and the legitimate sale price, and to the extent and existence of the obligation by the Defendant from October 30, 2012 to October 17, 2014, which is the date of this decision where it is deemed reasonable that the dispute over the existence of the obligation and the scope of the obligation by the Defendant is reasonable. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor 31, the Plaintiff 41, and the succeeding.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the obligation of the Plaintiff (including the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor 5, among the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors) to pay the sale price in accordance with each of the instant sales contracts concluded with the Defendant does not exceed the corresponding amount indicated in the “amount of the remaining debt” column, the details of the sale price in attached Form 3, and as long as the Defendant is disputing this, the above Plaintiffs have a benefit to seek confirmation.

If so, the plaintiffs (including the plaintiff 5's successor intervenor 20,00) and the plaintiff 4's successor 1's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff 8's successor 3 and the plaintiff 14's successor's claim by the plaintiff 3 and 8's successor 14 shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Accordingly, the decision of the court of first instance is unfair. Accordingly, the decision of the court of first instance shall be modified, including the claim partially accepted by the defendant's appeal and the changed claim for exchange in the trial.

[Attachment Form]

Judges Lee Dong-won (Presiding Judge)

1) The plaintiffs (excluding the withdrawing plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors 1, 3, and 4 of the succeeding intervenors 5 and the succeeding intervenors 4 of the plaintiff (excluding the plaintiff 5's succeeding intervenors 2) made late payment of part of the parcelling-out price in the part without dispute after the judgment of the first instance, and revised the purport of the claim by reflecting this in the trial at the trial. The plaintiff 4's succeeding intervenors 1, 8 of the plaintiff 1, 8 of the succeeding intervenors 3, and 14 of the plaintiff 4 of the succeeding intervenors 4 of the plaintiff 1, 8 of the succeeding intervenors 3, and 14 of the plaintiff (Withdrawal) sought confirmation that there is no obligation to sell the parcelling-out price in excess of the amount recognized by them in the first trial. After paying the parcelling-out price in excess of the part

Note 2) An amount calculated in the formula of [the total construction cost concerned 】 (the total construction cost concerned 】 (1,211,076 square meters / total business area / total business area of 7,046,222 square meters)] in the case of 8,9,14,18, and 19 (a *).

3) Article 9 (Installation and Management of Used-Water Recycling System) (1) A person who intends to construct, rebuild, or rebuild any of the following facilities (including cases of extension, renovation, or reconstruction exceeding the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree; hereinafter the same shall apply in this Article) or to implement a development project shall install and operate used-water treatment systems so that at least 10 percent of the quantity of water used can be recycled independently or jointly, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment; and (b) 6. (c) Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Promotion and Support of the reuse of Water for Housing Site Development under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (which shall be subject to installation and management of a used-water reuse system) (1) "in cases of extension, renovation, or reconstruction exceeding the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 9 (1) of the Act means cases where the total area to be extended, reconstructed,

Note 4) Felling less than Won, hereinafter the same shall apply.

5) Article 748(2) of the Civil Act provides that a malicious beneficiary shall compensate for any loss incurred in return with interest added thereto, and Article 749(2) of the same Act provides that a bona fide beneficiary shall be deemed a bona fide beneficiary from the time the lawsuit was brought against him/her. The date on which a copy of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant is clearly recorded on July 2, 2012, and the date on which the copy of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant is later clearly recorded, and the Intervenor 4’s successor to the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) paid the final sale price on October 30, 2012, the Defendant shall bear legal interest as to unjust enrichment from the date of the final payment.