2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 26, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with B on the Nam-si, Namyang-si, C, 249 square meters (referring to the land included in the development-restricted area designated as of August 25, 1972) and its ground, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff on the grounds of the above sales contract on June 29, 2004.

B. The Defendant is the project implementer of the D Housing Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the instant housing is included in the said project district.

C. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant about the payment of the cost of moving a house in this case, and the Defendant asked that the second floor of the instant house (hereinafter “instant extension”) was extended without obtaining permission on June 28, 2012, and the building at the time of extension before 1989 as a result of the aerial photography reading and the present building at the time is different in the size and roof structure. As such, the building extended to the second floor is deemed to be a building constructed before 1989 and another building, and the Plaintiff was found not to be eligible for the cost of moving a house.

In around 2014, the Plaintiff again asked the Defendant about whether the Plaintiff is eligible for the payment of the Plaintiff’s housing relocation cost. However, the Defendant responded that the instant extension portion was newly constructed after April 1989, so it cannot be recognized as a legitimate building pursuant to Article 5 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “the Addenda of this case”). Therefore, the Plaintiff did not constitute a person eligible for the payment of the housing relocation cost.