주거이전비등
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
1. The scope of the trial in this Court claimed against the defendant in the first instance court for the payment of expenses for relocation of residence, director's expenses, and damages for delay. The first instance court dismissed all of the part concerning the expenses for relocation of residence among the plaintiff's above claims, and partly accepted the claim regarding director's expenses.
The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of the cost of relocation of a house, since only the plaintiff appealed to the part of the cost of relocation of a house.
2. On August 5, 2009, the Mayor south of the foundation fact-finding market published a public announcement for the designation of the improvement zone and the resident inspection of the improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement project”) with respect to the housing redevelopment improvement project in B (hereinafter “instant improvement project”).
On April 1, 2016, the Hanam City publicly announced the authorization for the implementation of the instant improvement project.
(D) On May 28, 2007, prior to the date of the public inspection as above, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report on the building in the Hanam-si F&O located in the instant improvement zone (hereinafter “first building”) and filed a move-in report on the building in Q and R owned in the instant improvement zone (hereinafter “instant second building”) around July 13, 2009, and filed a move-in report on the building in the instant first building around July 20, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 21, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
3. Determination as to the claim for relocation expenses
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around January 2006, the Plaintiff resided in the first floor store of the instant building in KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000; and (b) around July 13, 2009, leased and resided in the instant building No. 2 in KRW 55,00,000; and (c) around July 2010, the Plaintiff again leased and resided in the first floor N of the instant building.
Therefore, the plaintiff is within the rearrangement zone of this case at the time of August 5, 2009, which was the public notice date for public inspection of the above residents.