(a) Authorization and announcement of project implementation - Project implementation authorization and announcement - B housing redevelopment rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as the “project in this case”): Public announcement of project implementation authorization: C- The location and area of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu - The location and area of the rearrangement zone: the location and area of the rearrangement zone - the public announcement date of the designation of the rearrangement zone on February 15, 2007: the Defendant;

B. The Plaintiff became a person subject to cash settlement because it did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out publicly notified by the Defendant as the owner of Mapo-gu Seoul E, F 205 square meters and above-ground housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) within the instant rearrangement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff had resided in the instant housing from around April 27, 2012, which was the date of public inspection and announcement of the designation of the rearrangement zone for the instant project, until April 27, 2012, and the implementation of the instant project had not been disputed between the parties, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff housing relocation expenses, resettlement funds, and director expenses.

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 20,879,060,00,000,000, and the amount of KRW 2,046,210, inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20,879,060, and damages for delay.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the obligation against the plaintiff was extinguished because he had already paid the settlement money including the settlement money, etc. to the plaintiff and agreed not to demand the settlement money, etc. any longer.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, on September 3, 2012, the plaintiff drafted an agreement with the defendant on the housing name map. The plaintiff is among the contents.