1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,830,652 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 15,475,130 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from September 2, 2017 to October 2017 to Plaintiff B.

1. The purport of Article 78(4) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) is to provide the basis for living for those subject to relocation measures. As such, “basic living facilities according to the relevant regional conditions, such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, and other public facilities, etc.” under the said provision refers to main facilities such as roads, water supply and drainage facilities, electric facilities, telecommunications facilities, gas facilities, and district heating facilities, etc., on which a project operator who implements a housing construction project or a housing site development project is required to install pursuant to the relevant statutes, such as

Therefore, if a person subject to relocation measures, a project executor, or a supplier under his/her arrangement, included the cost of the basic living facilities as stipulated in Article 78(4) of the former Public Works Act in a special supply contract for a housing site or housing entered into by the person subject to relocation measures, and thus the person subject to relocation measures, was paid to the project executor, etc. by the cost of the basic living facilities. If the project executor directly supplies the housing site or housing, the portion of the cost of the special supply contract, which included the cost of the basic living facilities, in the cost of the basic living facilities, is invalid as it violates the above provision, which is a mandatory law. If another supplier supplies the housing site or housing by his/her arrangement, the project executor is exempted from the disbursement of the amount equivalent to the cost of the basic living facilities to be borne by the project executor without any legal cause. Accordingly, the project executor is obligated to return the amount to the person subject to relocation measures with unjust enrichment.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 23, 201