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

(a) Project name - Project name: B house redevelopment rearrangement project - Rearrangement zone location: Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government - The date of public inspection and announcement of maintenance plan: May 29, 2008 - The date of public announcement of project implementation authorization: December 3, 2013;

Project operator: Defendant (founded ground for recognition); non-contentious facts; Eul Nos. 4 and 5 (including virtual numbers); the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff resided in Seongbuk-gu Seoul E building as well as D on October 10, 2007. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,800,000 that the Plaintiff seeks within the scope of KRW 6,00,00, and KRW 5,980,456 that is the Plaintiff’s relocation expenses, and KRW 12,40,000 that is the sum of KRW 6,000 that is the Plaintiff’s relocation expenses, ③ KRW 60,000 that is the director’s expenses, and KRW 12,40,000 (= KRW 6,00,000 that is the KRW 5,80,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 78(1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) which applies mutatis mutandis to the implementation of a rearrangement project pursuant to Article 40(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), a project implementer shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement subsidies to persons who lose their base of livelihood due to the provision of residential buildings due to the implementation of public works, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, for those who are eligible to receive relocation subsidies (the owners of residential buildings shall also be the owners of residential buildings).

A) The tenant who resides in a building owned by another person is excluded from the eligible tenant (Article 40(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act). Since the Plaintiff is not the owner of a residential building in an improvement zone, the Plaintiff is not the eligible beneficiary of the resettlement subsidy. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. 2) The relocation cost of the residential building is the relocation cost.