beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal on the computation of unjust enrichment from the pre-sale cost of the cost of basic living facilities, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, presumed that the Defendant calculated the sales price of not more than 265§³ of the instant resettled housing site by deducting the cost of basic living facilities from the said amount based on the total project cost - the cost of relocation measures (i.e., the cost of legitimate sale in the instant sales contract should be calculated on the basis of the cost of housing site creation. Ultimately, the reasonable sale price of the instant sales contract should be calculated on the basis of the cost of housing site creation. Ultimately, on the premise that the legitimate sale price of the instant sales contract should be calculated in the formula of “[total project cost (excluding the cost of relocation measures) - the cost of basic living facilities ± the cost of cost of housing supply 】 the area of the actual sale price of the housing site by
Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation method of unjust enrichment based on the pre-payment of the cost of basic
2. As to the ground of appeal on the establishment area of basic living facilities
A. A. A road that a project implementer is required to provide basic living facilities to a person subject to relocation measures shall include, notwithstanding its length or width, roads constituting arterial facilities as defined in Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Housing Act; that is, roads that connect the same kind of roads located outside the relevant housing complex to the roads located outside the relevant housing complex (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013); and the functions of linking the entrance of the relevant housing complex, etc. and other roads located outside the relevant housing complex with the project district, which are installed in the public project zone by the project implementer.