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

A. Outline of the rearrangement project - Project name: B housing redevelopment and rearrangement project - Project implementer: Defendant - The location and size of the rearrangement zone: Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”) - The public inspection and publication date of the rearrangement plan: April 8, 2008 - the authorization date for project implementation: November 1, 2012.

On May 6, 2004, the Plaintiff had been living in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and the second floor (hereinafter “instant domicile”) located in the instant rearrangement zone after having transferred resident registration.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a tenant who leased and resided in the instant domicile from March 10, 2004 to E and F, his parent, and became to move to the implementation of the instant project. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff housing relocation expenses.

B. Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor provides that a tenant of a residential building who has resided in an improvement zone for at least three months at the time the public announcement of the public announcement of the public announcement is required to compensate for the housing relocation expenses. In order for a tenant to be eligible for the housing relocation expenses, the tenant must reside in the relevant improvement zone for at least three months at the time of the public announcement of the public announcement of the public announcement of the improvement plan. The tenant referred to in Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor refers to the tenant of a building for public use and the borrower of the loan for use does not constitute the above tenant

In other words, the owner of the domicile of this case is E, F, the parent of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is the husband's G and his children on May 6, 2004, together with the following facts: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18580, May 6, 2004>