(a) Outline of the rearrangement project: The rearrangement zone for B-house redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement project”): The date of public announcement of the implementation approval on December 1, 2008: The date of consultation acquisition contract on March 24, 201: the project implementer on December 3, 2018: the Defendant;

B. The Plaintiff’s status as the Plaintiff was the owner of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Down-gu Down-ho (hereinafter “instant housing”), a residential building located within the instant rearrangement project zone, and on March 19, 1996, the Plaintiff continued to reside after being registered as a resident of the instant housing, and became a person subject to cash settlement because the Defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period set by the Defendant. On February 23, 2019, the Plaintiff moved from the instant housing.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 7, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. On the ground that the Plaintiff, a person subject to cash settlement prior to the Defendant’s merits, sought the payment of housing relocation expenses and relocation expenses to the Defendant, who is the project implementer of the instant rearrangement project, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since there exists no benefit of protection of rights

B. According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the acquisition of the instant housing with “17,33,340 won,” with respect to the instant housing on December 3, 2018. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are deemed to include all the money related to the compensation prescribed in the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the said Act.

In addition, when the plaintiff concludes a contract to enter into an agreement with the defendant on the housing of this case, he shall demand the defendant to pay any legal amount other than compensation for consultation as above.