A. The Defendant is a project implementer for the redevelopment and rearrangement project of B houses (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”).

With respect to the instant rearrangement project, on January 12, 2009, the public announcement was made for public inspection of residents for the formulation of the rearrangement plan, and the public announcement was made on May 27, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff, as the owner of land and residential buildings located within the Seoul Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant housing”), became a person subject to cash settlement because he did not apply for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out set by the Defendant.

C. The Defendant filed an application for adjudication against the Plaintiff, who did not purchase real estate by negotiation, and rendered a ruling of expropriation on November 29, 2017.

On the other hand, the spouse D, children E, and F, both of the Plaintiff’s family members, continued to move into the instant house from July 15, 2003 to the date of the above decision of expropriation, which had been registered as a preservation of ownership on the instant house, but the Plaintiff had a different address on August 14, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of obligation to pay housing relocation expenses, relocation expenses, and resettlement subsidies;

A. The issues of this case and the issues of this case’s assertion are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, the owner of a residential building for which cash liquidation was made, and (b) from January 12, 2009 to November 29, 2017, which was the date of the public inspection and announcement of the maintenance plan, the Defendant’s expropriation decision regarding the pertinent building, is continuously owned and resided in the instant housing until November 29, 2017 (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19519, Feb. 26, 2015); and (c) the issue of this case’s assertion is whether the Plaintiff, the owner of a residential building for which the said residential building was the owner of the residential building, who was the owner of the residential building for which public works were performed,