주거이전비등
1. Of the part against Plaintiff L in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff L who additionally pays the following amount.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The reasoning of the judgment by the court on this part of the relevant legal principles is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
3. Whether he/she is a person eligible for relocation expenses and director expenses;
A. In order for the Plaintiffs to be the tenants of residential buildings to be eligible for housing relocation expenses and director expenses, ① in the case of housing relocation expenses, the tenants who resided in the relevant rearrangement zone for at least three months (one year in the case of an unauthorized building) at the time when the relevant Plaintiffs were announced for public inspection of their residents (one year in the case of an unauthorized building) and have resided in the relevant rearrangement zone continuously by the project implementation date (one year in the case of an unauthorized building) until the project implementation date; ② in the case of director expenses, the relevant Plaintiffs shall be the residents who resided in the relevant rearrangement zone by the project implementation date (one year in the case of an unauthorized building).
Unlike the relocation cost, the director's expense does not require a separate requirement for "resident for at least one year in the case of an unauthorized building for three months as of the date of the public inspection for the resident's public inspection." The director's expense should be determined after examining whether the resident living in the residential building located in the improvement zone and relocated due to the implementation of the improvement project, and then whether the director's expense should be recognized. However, the resident's public inspection date for the public inspection
The court below's rejection of the claim for the director's non-performance solely on the ground that the director's non-performance has not been completed
There is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the case.
Supreme Court Decision 2011Du22792 Decided August 30, 2012 see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du22792.