주거이전비등
1. The Defendant: 21,030,175 won to Plaintiff A; 23,724,233 won to Plaintiff B; 17,86,989 won to Plaintiff C; and 18.
(3) In light of the policy purpose of encouraging early relocation of tenants residing in the relevant area where public works are performed and the purpose of facilitating the implementation of the project and the nature of paying the tenants who will suffer special difficulties due to relocation of their residence, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du2435, Apr. 27, 2006; 2010Du7475, Apr. 26, 2012), it is reasonable to deem that the subject of compensation for tenants is determined on the date of public inspection and public announcement, and that subsequent residence does not affect the compensation of tenants.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the resident registration before and after the date of the public inspection of theO does not affect the calculation of the number of household members eligible for compensation. Therefore, the number of Plaintiff F’s household members eligible for compensation should be deemed three.
(4) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to each of the Plaintiffs the total amount of money indicated in each column of total amount, such as resettlement funds, relocation expenses, and director expenses, as follows, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from November 1, 2018 to the day of full payment, upon the Plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiff
A 12,00,000 7,040,040 (2 months* 3,520,020), 990,135 21,030,030, 175 2 B B 12,000,231,632 (2 months* 4,115,816) 1,492,60,6012,601,724, 2333 C 12,00,374,388 (2 months, 12,187,187,1894, 3944, 2946, 364, 297, 2945, 364, 197, 2546, 196, 364, 297, 394, 197, 194, 194, 206, 397, 1947
3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.