All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the first and second levels of roads where a project implementer is required to provide the basic living facilities to a person subject to relocation measures, including roads constituting arterial facilities, i.e., roads connected to the same kind of roads outside the relevant housing complex, notwithstanding their length or width (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3303, Sept. 26, 2013). Barring special circumstances, the lower court determined that the roads, the basic living facilities of which are roads, are limited to roads located outside the relevant housing complex, including those located outside the relevant housing complex, where the entrance of the housing complex, etc. within the relevant project district, and roads, which connect the roads located outside the relevant project district, are essential facilities for the achievement of the functions of the housing complex, etc. within the relevant project district and for the passage of the entire residents (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da29509, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected all the Defendant’s assertion that the roads are located outside the relevant housing complex or the entire residential zone.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of roads falling under the basic living facilities.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the third and fourth grounds, the lower court is based on its stated reasoning.