2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On September 1, 2008, the Defendant, as the implementer of the housing redevelopment improvement project in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Northerndong (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”), is a rearrangement project association authorized by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 1, 2008. The head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the instant rearrangement project plan on August 3, 2007, and publicly announced on October 16, 2009 as the Seodaemun-gu Public notification No. 2009-82.

B. The Plaintiffs owned and resided in each of the above ground buildings located in the instant rearrangement project zone in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), and (number 3 omitted). The Plaintiffs did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out and did not file an application for parcelling-out and sold each of the buildings to the Defendant.

Plaintiff 1, 120, 953, 960 on May 19, 1983, Plaintiff 2, on November 4, 1977, 143, 105, 505, 50 on January 18, 1993, Plaintiff 3, North Asia-dong (number 3 omitted) on January 4, 1993, 111, 369, 90 on July 4, 201, at the time of the date of consultation and sale of the building at the seat of Plaintiff 1 (number 1 omitted) of the household members at the time of consultation and sale. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 10457, Jul. 11, 1993; Presidential Decree No. 22693, Mar. 4, 2010>

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition】 The evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers) through 15, Gap evidence Nos. 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the owner of residential buildings in a rearrangement zone, such as the plaintiffs, who became eligible for cash settlement because he/she did not apply for parcelling-out and became eligible for cash settlement due to an improvement project, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs settlement money, resettlement expenses, relocation expenses, director expenses, and delay damages, such as the settlement money, relocation expenses, and payment for delay as stated in the claims of each claim under Article 78(1) and (5) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc.”) which are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to the main sentence of Article 40(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas does not expressly stipulate whether the relocation measures under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas apply to cases where the owners of land, etc. having the right to apply for a parcelling-out as the plaintiffs applied for a cash settlement. The residential relocation expenses under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents in the area where the public works are implemented, as part of the relocation measures, shall be paid to the residents who will suffer special difficulties due to the relocation of their residential buildings in the area where the public works are implemented in order to facilitate the project by encouraging the early relocation of residents of residential buildings in the area where the public works are implemented, and thus, it is contrary to the purport of the above system to waive the right to parcelling-out and pay the housing relocation expenses, directors expenses, etc. to the owners of the land, etc. who have received cash settlement as the plaintiffs, and thus, Article 9-2 (2) of the

(B) It is unclear whether the plaintiffs' members of the household actually resided, and in particular, the non-party 1, who is the children of the plaintiff 3, was registered as a separate independent household, and the non-party 2 was registered as a resident in another building, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the plaintiff 3's members of the household. The non-party 4, who is the mother of the plaintiff 2, is not recorded in the plaintiff 2's resident registration card,

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to whether a person subject to cash clearing is subject to relocation measures

(2) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Resident Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

(2) Whether to determine the number of household members solely on the resident registration record card

In light of the fact that the relocation measures stipulated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 78 of the Public Works Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, are the systems established by active and policy consideration of the State as part of living compensation such as restoring the previous living conditions to the migrants. The original purpose of the plan to take such relocation measures is not to facilitate the relocation of the residents, and it is necessary for the residents who lose their base of living to recover the previous living conditions, so that they need to compensate for them in terms of livelihood security, it is necessary to compensate for them in terms of livelihood security. In addition, it is reasonable to determine whether a building owner is a family member who is the basis for calculating the cost of relocation under Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act, rather than simply by the public record, by considering whether the building owner actually resides together with the owner of the building (Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act should be compensated for two-month relocation expenses according to the number of the family members at the time of compensation for the building.

Based on the above evidence and the whole purport of the oral argument, the following evidence can be acknowledged: ① at the date of consultation and sale, Plaintiff 3 and Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2 were registered at each same domicile; ② at the time of consultation and sale date, Nonparty 2, who was Plaintiff 3, were registered in 1981; ② at another domicile (North Asia-dong 2 omitted); but at the same time, Plaintiff 3 (North Asia-dong 3 omitted) was directly adjacent to the address of Plaintiff 3 (the number 3 omitted); ③ the receipt of communications fee was sent to Plaintiff 3; ③ the director after the date of consultation and the moving-in report was filed at each Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 2’s domicile; ③ Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 did not appear to have been registered at the same domicile as Plaintiff 3 and his children, and Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4, who actually resided with Plaintiff 2 and Nonparty 4, who were their children, were not included in the criteria for moving-in report from Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3’s residence.

(3) The amount of resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and moving expenses.

(a) Resettlement funds;

The time when the obligation to pay resettlement allowances arises is at the time of the public announcement of the project approval, etc. or the public announcement, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public services (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du2435, Apr. 27, 2006; 2010Du7475, Apr. 26, 2012). In this case, the time when the obligation to pay resettlement allowances arises, barring any special circumstance, shall be October 16, 2009, publicly notified for the authorization of the implementation of the instant improvement project. Accordingly, the resettlement allowances to be paid by the Defendant, pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Public Works Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 427, Jan. 2, 2012), shall be KRW 5 million, and shall be KRW 10,000,000,000 for each of the Plaintiffs.

(b) Relocation expenses and director expenses.

According to Gap evidence No. 16, since the monthly average household expenses of urban workers' households in April 2009 3,516,070 won, the defendant must pay the plaintiffs the monthly average household expenses of KRW 7,032,140 (monthly average household expenses x 2 months).

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 17 and 18, the urban daily wage of 67,909 won at the time of the public notice of approval for the implementation of the instant improvement project, and the fare of 5t trucks is 104,840 won. Thus, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the following director's expenses.

Plaintiff 172.18 6407,454 314,520 108,296 830,270,270 Plaintiff 240.214 271,636 209,680 72,680,680 72,553,513, 362, 362,52.053,513,513, 539,5452,5262,100,24691,892

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the same amount as the following table and each amount of the same amount as the settlement money, housing relocation expenses, and directors' total sum, with 20% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 16, 2012 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

Plaintiff 10,000,000,000 7,032,140 830,270,862,410 Plaintiff 210,000,0007,032,140,553,513,513,585,653 Plaintiff 310,000,000,032, 691,892,724,032

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Ansan-gu (Presiding Judge) Regular Award