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 February 18, 1999, the Plaintiff is referred to as “the domicile of this case” of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, 1 (sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

A resident has been living after the transfer of his resident registration.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that he leased the domicile of this case from E, the head of the plaintiff, and resided in the domicile of this case from February 18, 1999, and moved to the implementation of the project of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the moving expenses and moving expenses to the plaintiff.

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, who is the principal of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is married to F, who is his father, around February 18, 199, and is the domicile of this case as of February 18, 199.