A. The Defendant is the project implementer of M District Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”); and the Plaintiffs are the owners of residential buildings within the project zone of the instant rearrangement project.

B. In relation to the instant improvement project, the public announcement of the maintenance plan under Article 31 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12640, May 21, 2014; hereinafter “former Act”) was made on December 18, 2006, and the project implementation plan was approved under Article 28 of the former Act on April 30, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 16 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form 3 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the defendant's obligation to pay housing relocation expenses, etc. is recognized

A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1 is the owners of residential buildings within the project zone of the instant rearrangement project. As such, the Defendant’s assertion is the Plaintiffs’ acquisition of and compensation for the land, etc. for public works to which the former Act applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 40 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 12972, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “former Land Compensation Act”).

(i) the cost of moving a house, the cost of moving a house, the cost of moving a house, and the cost of moving a house (hereinafter referred to as “resident

(2) The Defendant’s alleged residential relocation expenses, etc. shall be paid to those subject to the relocation measures stipulated in Article 78(1) of the former Land Compensation Act.

However, the Plaintiffs filed an application for cash settlement pursuant to Article 47 of the former Act, and there is no explicit provision that cash clearing agents constitute those subject to relocation measures under the former Act, so the Plaintiffs cannot be paid housing relocation expenses, etc. because they do not fall under those subject to relocation measures.

B. We examine the judgment, and even if there is no express provision that cash clearing agents are subject to relocation measures under the former Act, the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.