주거이전비 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except where part of the grounds of the judgment of first instance is cited or added as follows. Thus, it shall be cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is used or added, shall be divided into “108,220 square meters” into “107,329 square meters” from the lower end of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance to “107,329 square meters.
"A evidence No. 21" shall be added to the third page of the judgment of the first instance.
The 8th to 20th of the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.
B. The defendant's defense is a defense that the plaintiff's right to move housing and the right to claim for director's expenses has expired by prescription. Thus, as seen earlier, the plaintiff acquired the right to claim for moving housing and the right to claim for director's expenses on July 19, 2006, which is the public notice of the project approval for the rearrangement project of this case. The above right to claim for moving housing and the right to claim for moving housing can be claimed against the defendant from the date of acquisition of the above right to claim for moving housing and for moving expenses.
In addition, it is clear that the lawsuit in this case was filed on January 25, 2019, after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the public announcement of the public announcement of the construction of the rearrangement project in this case. However, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 21, the defendant made a public announcement to the effect that the resident will pay relocation expenses to the resident within the rearrangement project zone in this case including the plaintiff around March 26, 2018, after the expiration of 10 years from the public announcement of the public announcement of the construction of the rearrangement project in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant renounced his interest even with the knowledge that the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's above dwelling relocation expenses and the right to claim
The plaintiff is not a public announcement of the relocation expenses and director expenses for himself on the ground that the defendant made a public announcement of the migration around March 2018, but a public announcement of the relocation expenses for himself.