A. Defendant B: the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C shall have the floor of the real estate indicated in the attached list.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association whose project implementation district covers the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Group.

The head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the management and disposition plan of the plaintiff on July 8, 2016, and announced it on July 14, 2016.

B. Defendant B is the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet located within the instant improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant building”), who completed the application for parcelling-out, and Defendant C is the lessee of the portion (B), 25.32 square meters, which connects each point of the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 1 among the land strata of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the plaintiff's cause of claim, the defendants have the duty to deliver real estate to the plaintiff as stated in the order pursuant to Article 49 (6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas

B. Defendant C’s assertion 1) asserts to the effect that Defendant C cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim as it was unable to receive a lease deposit. However, Defendant C did not appear on the date of pleading, but did not present specific arguments to confirm the contents of the lease agreement, and did not submit evidentiary materials. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept. 2) Defendant C did not receive a director’s expense, and thus, Defendant C cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

The right to claim compensation, such as relocation expenses, as a right under public law, should be subject to administrative litigation that covers legal relations under public law, so it cannot be used as a ground for defense in civil litigation.

In addition, the above claim for compensation is not for the compensation of the loss of the owner caused by the legally implemented public works, but for the amount of money of the nature of social security.