Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 2025다219649 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/16057 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 2025다219649

Unjust Enrichment (부당이득금)부당이득금

Decided2026. 04. 02. Court대법원Plaintiff (relocation program beneficiary) won
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

The Supreme Court held that when a public project operator (Seoul Housing & Urban Development Corporation) sold relocation housing lots to eligible relocatees, it was unlawful to include in the sale price the cost of installing basic living infrastructure (생활기본시설) — costs the law requires the project operator itself to bear. The Court also ruled that the operator could not use an internal guideline to calculate the sale price based on an appraised value higher than the actual cost of developing the land. As a result, for the portion of land up to 265㎡ subject to special allocation, the lawful sale price must be calculated as 'land development cost minus infrastructure installation cost,' and any amount collected above this must be refunded to the relocatees.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA public housing developer included legally mandated infrastructure costs in the sale price charged to relocatees receiving special housing lot allocations.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled the practice unlawful and ordered the developer to refund the excess amount collected above the legally permitted price.
  • LessonPublic project operators cannot pass on legally required infrastructure costs to relocatees, and internal pricing guidelines cannot override statutory pricing rules.
Issues
  • Whether a special allocation contract clause that includes basic living infrastructure installation costs in the sale price is valid, given that it may violate a mandatory statutory provision, and whether this results in unjust enrichment
  • Whether a project operator may calculate the sale price of relocation housing lots based on an appraised value higher than the actual land development cost, and what standard should be used to determine the lawful sale price
Key reasoning

Article 78(4) of the Land Compensation Act (토지보상법) is a mandatory provision requiring the project operator to bear the cost of basic living infrastructure; therefore, any contract clause that folds these costs into the sale price is void, and the amounts collected constitute unjust enrichment (부당이득). For the portion of land eligible for special allocation to relocatees, the sale price must be set at 'land development cost minus infrastructure installation cost,' regardless of whether the operator applied an appraised value under its own internal guidelines. This principle applies uniformly, though for any portion of land exceeding the statutory allocation limit of 265㎡, pricing based on appraised value is permissible.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] In a special supply contract for a settler's residential site concluded between the implementer of a public project and a person subject to a resettlement plan, if the cost of installing basic living facilities prescribed in Article 78(4) of the Act on Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and Compensation Therefor (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Compensation Act”) was included in the sale price, such that the person subject to the resettlement plan ended up paying the project implementer even the cost of installing basic living facilities, then the part of the special supply contract that included the cost of installing basic living facilities in the sale price is null and void as it violates Article 78(4) of the Land Compensation Act, which is a mandatory provision. Accordingly, unjust enrichment is established with respect to the portion that the person subject to the resettlement plan paid to the project implementer as sale price, corresponding to the cost of installing basic living facilities included in the residential site supply price.

Meanwhile, it is not permissible, in light of the purpose of the Land Compensation Act—which legislated the supply of settlers' residential sites for the proper protection of property rights of those who lose their basis of living due to the implementation of a public project—for the project implementer to calculate the residential site supply price based on an appraised price higher than the cost of site development, with respect to the area subject to special supply as a resettlement measure. Therefore, absent special circumstances, whether unjust enrichment is included in the supply price for the area subject to special supply among the settler's residential site should be determined by whether the sale price exceeds the legitimate sale price, i.e., “the amount obtained by deducting the cost of installing basic living facilities from the cost of site development,” and this conclusion should not be altered even if the project implementer calculated the sale price based on the appraised price rather than the cost of site development pursuant to its internal guidelines.

[2] In a case where the Seoul Housing & Communities Corporation, the implementer of a public rental housing project, entered into a sale contract with Gap, a person subject to a resettlement plan, calculating the sale price based on an appraised price higher than the cost of site development, the court held as follows: with respect to the portion of the settler's residential site subject to special supply, i.e., 265㎡ or less, it is reasonable to calculate the legitimate sale price per ㎡ by deducting the cost per ㎡ of installing basic living facilities from the cost per ㎡ of site development; and with respect to the portion supplied in excess of 265㎡, the limit for supply of settler's residential sites, it is reasonable to calculate the price based on the appraised price and include it in the legitimate sale price. Based on this determination, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment, which held that the portion of the sale price received by the above Corporation in excess of the legitimate sale price constitutes unjust enrichment, giving rise to an obligation to return it to Gap.

Full text (English, AI translation) 4,704 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney: Law Firm Myungryun, Attorney Kim Hyung-woo and 1 other)
[Defendant, Appellant] Seoul Housing & Urban Development Corporation (formerly: Seoul Housing & Urban Corporation) (Attorney: Law Firm Pyungchon and others)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2025Na207423 rendered on October 23, 2025

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal (including the written statement submitted after the deadline for submission of the grounds of appeal, to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined.
1. Where a special supply contract for a resettlement housing site (이주자택지) concluded between a person subject to a resettlement measure (이주대책대상자) and a project operator (사업시행자) includes in the sale price the cost of installing basic living facilities (생활기본시설 설치비용) as provided in Article 78(4) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (「공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률」, hereinafter “the Land Compensation Act”), such that the person subject to the resettlement measure ends up paying even the cost of installing basic living facilities to the project operator, then the portion of the special supply contract that includes the cost of installing basic living facilities in the sale price is invalid as being in violation of Article 78(4) of the Land Compensation Act, which is a mandatory statutory provision. Accordingly, unjust enrichment is established with respect to the portion, corresponding to the cost of installing basic living facilities included in the site supply price, that the person subject to the resettlement measure paid to the project operator as sale price (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da63089, 63096 decided June 23, 2011; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da93435 decided October 11, 2013, etc.).
Meanwhile, it is impermissible, in light of the purpose of the Land Compensation Act—which legislates the supply of resettlement housing sites for the proper protection of property rights of those who lose their basis of livelihood due to the implementation of a public works project—for the project operator to calculate the site supply price for the area subject to special supply as part of the resettlement measure based on an appraised price that is higher than the site development cost. Accordingly, whether the supply price for the area subject to special supply among resettlement housing sites includes unjust enrichment must, absent special circumstances, be determined according to whether the sale price exceeds the legitimate sale price, that is, “the amount obtained by deducting the cost of installing basic living facilities from the site development cost,” and this conclusion does not change even if the project operator calculated the sale price based on the appraised price rather than the site development cost pursuant to its internal guidelines.
2. In this case, where the Defendant, as the project operator, entered into a supply contract with the Plaintiff, a person subject to the resettlement measure, calculating the sale price based on an appraised price higher than the site development cost, the court below determined, for the reasons stated in its judgment, that it is appropriate to calculate the legitimate sale price per square meter for the portion of the resettlement housing site subject to special supply that is 265㎡ or less by deducting the per-square-meter cost of installing basic living facilities from the per-square-meter site development cost, while including in the legitimate sale price, calculated at the appraised price, the portion supplied in excess of the 265㎡ supply limit for the resettlement housing site in this case. The court below then determined that the portion of the sale price that the Defendant received in excess of the legitimate sale price constitutes unjust enrichment, obligating the Defendant to return it to the Plaintiff.
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above and the record, there is no error in the above determination of the court below, such as a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the determination of the supply price of resettlement housing sites or a failure to state reasons, that would have affected the judgment.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Shin Suk-hee (Presiding Justice), Cheon Dae-yeop (Justice in charge), Seo Kyung-hwan, Ma Yong-ju

【판결요지】

[1] 공익사업의 시행자와 이주대책대상자 사이에 체결된 이주자택지에 관한 특별공급계약에서 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(이하 ‘토지보상법’이라고 한다) 제78조 제4항에 규정된 생활기본시설 설치비용을 분양대금에 포함시킴으로써 이주대책대상자가 생활기본시설 설치비용까지 사업시행자에게 지급하게 되었다면, 특별공급계약 중 분양대금에 생활기본시설 설치비용을 포함시킨 부분은 강행법규인 토지보상법 제78조 제4항에 위배되어 무효이다. 따라서 택지 공급가격에 포함된 생활기본시설 설치비용만큼 이주대책대상자가 사업시행자에게 분양대금으로 지급한 부분에 대하여는 부당이득이 성립한다.

한편 사업시행자가 이주대책으로서 특별공급 대상인 면적에 대하여, 택지조성원가보다 높은 감정가격을 토대로 택지 공급가격을 산정하는 것은 공익사업의 시행으로 인하여 생활의 근거를 상실하게 됨에 따라 재산권의 적정한 보호를 위해 이주자택지 공급을 법제화한 토지보상법의 취지에 비추어 허용될 수 없다. 따라서 이주자택지 중 특별공급 대상 면적에 대한 공급가격에 부당이득금이 포함되어 있는지는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 분양대금이 정당한 분양대금, 즉 ‘택지조성원가에서 생활기본시설 설치비용을 공제한 금액’을 초과하는지에 따라 판단하여야 하고, 이는 사업시행자가 내부지침을 근거로 분양대금을 택지조성원가가 아닌 감정가격을 기준으로 산정하였더라도 달리 볼 것은 아니다.

[2] 공공공주택사업의 시행자인 서울주택도시개발공사가 이주대책대상자인 甲과 택지조성원가보다 높은 감정가격을 기준으로 분양대금을 산정하여 분양계약을 체결한 사안에서, 이주자택지 중 특별공급 대상인 265㎡ 이하 부분은 ㎡당 택지조성원가에서 ㎡당 생활기본시설 설치비용을 공제하는 방법으로 ㎡당 정당한 분양대금을 산정하고, 이주자택지 공급한도인 265㎡를 초과하여 공급된 부분은 감정가격으로 그 대금을 계산하여 정당한 분양대금에 포함시키는 것이 타당하다고 판단한 후 위 공사가 정당한 분양대금을 초과하여 지급받은 분양대금은 부당이득에 해당하여 甲에게 반환할 의무가 있다고 본 원심판결을 수긍한 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제78조 제1항, 제4항, 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행령 제40조 제2항, 민법 제741조

[2] 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제78조 제1항, 제4항, 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행령 제40조 제2항, 민법 제741조

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 2011. 6. 23. 선고 2007다63089, 63096 전원합의체 판결(공2011하, 1440), 대법원 2013. 10. 11. 선고 2012다93435 판결

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,610자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】 원고 (소송대리인 법무법인 명륜 담당변호사 김형우 외 1인)

【피고, 상고인】 서울주택도시개발공사(변경 전 상호: 서울주택도시공사) (소송대리인 법무법인 평천 외 1인)

【원심판결】 서울고법 2025. 10. 23. 선고 2025나207423 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.

【이 유】 상고이유(상고이유서 제출기간이 지난 뒤에 제출된 서면의 기재는 상고이유를 보충하는 범위 내에서)를 판단한다.

1. 이주대책대상자와 사업시행자 사이에 체결된 이주자택지에 관한 특별공급계약에서 「공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률」(이하 ‘토지보상법’이라고 한다) 제78조 제4항에 규정된 생활기본시설 설치비용을 분양대금에 포함시킴으로써 이주대책대상자가 생활기본시설 설치비용까지 사업시행자에게 지급하게 되었다면, 특별공급계약 중 분양대금에 생활기본시설 설치비용을 포함시킨 부분은 강행법규인 토지보상법 제78조 제4항에 위배되어 무효이다. 따라서 택지 공급가격에 포함된 생활기본시설 설치비용만큼 이주대책대상자가 사업시행자에게 분양대금으로 지급한 부분에 대하여는 부당이득이 성립한다(대법원 2011. 6. 23. 선고 2007다63089, 63096 전원합의체 판결, 대법원 2013. 10. 11. 선고 2012다93435 판결 등 참조).

한편 사업시행자가 이주대책으로서 특별공급 대상인 면적에 대하여, 택지조성원가보다 높은 감정가격을 토대로 택지 공급가격을 산정하는 것은 공익사업의 시행으로 인하여 생활의 근거를 상실하게 됨에 따라 재산권의 적정한 보호를 위해 이주자택지 공급을 법제화한 토지보상법의 취지에 비추어 허용될 수 없다. 따라서 이주자택지 중 특별공급 대상 면적에 대한 공급가격에 부당이득금이 포함되어 있는지 여부는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 분양대금이 정당한 분양대금, 즉 ‘택지조성원가에서 생활기본시설 설치비용을 공제한 금액’을 초과하는지 여부에 따라 판단하여야 하고, 이는 사업시행자가 내부지침을 근거로 분양대금을 택지조성원가가 아닌 감정가격을 기준으로 산정하였더라도 달리 볼 것은 아니다.

2. 원심은 사업시행자인 피고가 이주대책대상자인 원고와 사이에 택지조성원가보다 높은 감정가격을 기준으로 분양대금을 산정하여 분양계약을 체결한 이 사안에서, 그 판시와 같은 이유로 이 사건 이주자택지 중 특별공급 대상인 265㎡ 이하 부분은 ㎡당 택지조성원가에서 ㎡당 생활기본시설 설치비용을 공제하는 방법으로 ㎡당 정당한 분양대금을 산정하고, 다만 이 사건 이주자택지 공급한도인 265㎡를 초과하여 공급된 부분은 감정가격으로 계산하여 정당한 분양대금에 포함시키는 것이 타당하다고 판단한 후 피고가 정당한 분양대금을 초과하여 지급받은 분양대금은 부당이득에 해당하여 원고에게 반환할 의무가 있다고 판단하였다.

원심판결 이유를 앞서 본 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심의 위와 같은 판단에 이주자택지 공급가격 결정에 관한 법리를 오해하거나 이유불비 등으로 판결에 영향을 미친 잘못이 없다.

3. 그러므로 상고를 기각하고 상고비용은 패소자가 부담하기로 하여, 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 신숙희(재판장) 천대엽(주심) 서경환 마용주

Related statutes

공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제78조 제4항민법 제741조(부당이득반환)민법 제103조(반사회질서 법률행위 무효)

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
87가합2281 · 서울민사지법 1987-11-19
부당이득금청구사건
#2
2023다285438 · 대법원 2026-02-12
Unjust Enrichment Claim

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)