2. Korea Land and Housing Corporation;

2. The claims of the Appointor B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I and the remaining claims of the Appointor B, C, D, E, F, H and I are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the designated parties B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I shall be borne by the said designated parties, and the part arising between the designated parties other than the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Defendants shall be borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On November 3, 2003, the Sungnam-gu Mayor made a public inspection and announcement of the maintenance plan (hereinafter “the instant project”) of the bank 203-524 as to the size of 169,966 square meters in Jung-gu, Sung-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-si, 2003 (hereinafter “the first public inspection and announcement”) with respect to the residential environment improvement project (hereinafter “the instant project”).

B. On March 20, 2006, the Seongdong-gu Mayor changed the rearrangement zone of the instant project into 182,918 square meters in Seoul-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul-gu, 2006, and made a public inspection and announcement of the instant project improvement plan (hereinafter referred to as “the second public inspection and announcement”) under Article 2006-278 of the Sungnam-si public announcement (hereinafter referred to as “the instant improvement plan”).

C. On October 29, 2007, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do designated and publicly announced the 182.936m2 of the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City bank 2, Seongbuk-gu 1342 as the improvement zone of the project of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "improvement zone of this case"), as the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice No. 2007-367 of 2007.

D. On July 15, 2008, the Sungnam-si market and the Korea National Housing Corporation (after that, the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation comprehensively succeeded to all rights and obligations of the Korea National Housing Corporation) were designated and publicly announced as an executor of the instant project.

E. On June 15, 2009, the Sungnam City approved the project implementation of the rearrangement zone in this case as the notification of Sungnam-si on June 15, 2009, and publicly notified it.

F. On August 24, 2009, the Sungnam City publicly announced the compensation plan for the land, etc. included in the instant project. On March 20, 2006, the date of the public inspection and announcement of the instant project on August 24, 2009, the Sungnam-si announced the relocation measures to select one of the owners of residential buildings located in the instant rearrangement zone prior to the date of public inspection and announcement of the instant project, which is 85m of land development project in the Sungnam-do Housing Site development zone, as to the owners of residential buildings located in the instant rearrangement zone prior to the date of public inspection and announcement of the instant project.

G. The plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") owned each residential building in the column of the residential building in attached Table 2 in the rearrangement zone in this case, and were compensated for the above residential building due to the project in this case.

H. In addition, the Plaintiff et al. selected a right to move into a housing unit with a size of 85 square meters or less within the Do housing site development project zone as a countermeasure for relocation, and was selected as a person eligible for special supply of apartment units with an exclusive area of 85 square meters or less constructed in the Do-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The Plaintiff and most designated parties entered into an apartment unit sale contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 9, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 40 of the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc.") shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use of land or a building for the implementation of a project as an owner who has resided in a residential building located in the rearrangement zone in this case. Article 78 (5) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that the owner of a residential building to be incorporated in the implementation zone of public works shall compensate for housing relocation expenses. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay

B. The defendants' assertion

Relocation measures are a system to restore the previous living conditions of migrants to ensure a living worthy of human beings at the same time. The cost of moving a house is a system that pays money to people who are expected to suffer special difficulties due to the relocation of a house. Articles 35 and 36 of the Urban Improvement Act provide that measures for relocation can be taken corresponding to temporary accommodation, such as the use of temporary accommodation facilities, temporary residence of facilities such as rental houses, loan arrangement of housing funds, etc. In addition, the above relocation measures are measures of the same nature as the compensation of the cost of moving a house first or at least temporary solution, and thus, the relocation measures and the payment of cost of moving a house are in a selective relationship. Therefore, as long as the defendant Corporation granted the plaintiff et al. a right to move a house in a housing site development project district in Seongbuk-do, the plaintiff et al. is not obligated to pay the cost of moving a house separately to the plaintiff et al.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination

(a) Whether there is an obligation to pay expenses for relocation of residence;

Articles 36(1) and 40(1) of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 9729, May 27, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that Article 36(1) and Article 40(1) of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the owners or tenants of houses removed due to the implementation of residential environment improvement projects and housing redevelopment projects shall allow them to temporarily reside in the facilities, such as rental houses, etc. located outside and outside the relevant rearrangement zone, or to take measures corresponding to temporary accommodation, such as arranging a loan of housing funds, and to the expropriation or use of the ownership of land or buildings and other rights for the implementation of a rearrangement project except

On the other hand, Article 78(5) of the Public Works Act and Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 180, Nov. 13, 2009; hereinafter the same) provide that the owner of a residential building to be incorporated in a zone where public works are performed shall compensate the owner of the residential building for housing relocation expenses for two months according to

The provision of temporary accommodation facilities to a housing owner under the Urban Improvement Act can be seen as a measure to promote the housing stability of the owners of housing demolished during the implementation period by having the project implementer of a residential environment improvement project and a housing redevelopment project provide temporary accommodation facilities to the owner of housing demolished due to the implementation of a residential environment improvement project and a housing redevelopment project, or by taking the measures corresponding to the provision of the temporary accommodation facilities such as arranging housing loans. However, the housing relocation cost to be paid to the owners of residential buildings relocated following the implementation of public works can be deemed as having the nature of money paid in the social security level for the owners of housing who are faced with special difficulties due to the policy purpose to facilitate the implementation of the project by encouraging the early relocation of the owners of residential buildings residing in the relevant public works implementation zone, and the provision of temporary accommodation facilities, such as the Urban Improvement Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act, the provision of the temporary accommodation facilities and the payment of housing relocation cost as the duty of the project implementer, and the text, contents, and purpose of the above provisions are not explicitly excluded from the recipients of the housing relocation cost.

(b) The base date determined by persons eligible for compensation for relocation expenses;

The base date for determining the person eligible for compensation for relocation expenses for the tenants of residential buildings under the Urban Improvement Act shall be deemed the date of public inspection and announcement of the improvement plan, when it becomes possible for residents, etc. to know that the implementation of the improvement project is scheduled due to the public announcement of the improvement plan (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16824, Sept. 9, 2010). In the case of the owners of residential buildings, it is necessary to encourage early relocation, and there is no difference between the tenants and the owners in terms of the difficulty due to the loss of their base of living due to the relocation of their dwelling, and if the criteria for determination of the persons eligible for compensation for relocation expenses are separately determined by classifying the tenants and the owners of residential buildings, it may occur if all the tenants and the owners of the tenants who resided in the same time as each other receive compensation for relocation expenses from one residential building, and there is a lot of interested parties, so that the date of the person eligible for compensation for relocation expenses is more likely to be determined uniformly than individually determined, and it is reasonable for the residents to smoothly announce the purpose of the housing relocation project.

In this case, as seen earlier, although the first and second public perusal and public announcement was made on the instant project, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 9, 10-3, and 1, as seen earlier, only the procedure related to the traffic impact assessment of the instant project was conducted after the date of the first public inspection and public announcement. The fact that the second public inspection and public announcement was conducted after the date of the second public inspection and public announcement that the Defendants also recognized the fact that the base date for determining the person entitled to the compensation for the housing relocation expenses for the tenants of the instant project was March 20, 2006, which is the date of the second public inspection and public announcement. Thus, it is reasonable to set the base date for determining the person entitled to the compensation for the housing relocation expenses for the owners of residential buildings of the instant project as March 20, 206.

Furthermore, in principle, the household water supply system shall be determined as of the date of public inspection and announcement of the improvement plan, and if the wife or child is transferred to the same household by the date of public announcement of the project implementation authorization, it is reasonable to calculate the relocation cost including the number of household members

C. Appropriateness of the Plaintiff’s claim for relocation expenses

(1) In order to become a person eligible for compensation for housing relocation expenses prescribed in Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act, he/she shall be the owner of the pertinent residential building as of March 20, 2006, which is the date of the second public inspection and publication, and shall reside therein.

According to the statement 51 and 66 of the evidence No. 1-51 and No. 1-6, the selected B acquired ownership of the residential building (J No. 401 of Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu) on June 30, 2006, and the Selection C can only recognize the fact that it is merely a provisional registration right holder of the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the purchase and sale reservation on April 12, 2010 regarding No. 201 of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, and there is no evidence to recognize that the above Selection owned each residential building as of the date of the second public inspection and announcement. Thus, the above Selection cannot be a person eligible for compensation for housing relocation expenses (However, in the case of the Selection L, it seems that the preservation of ownership of a residential building on the ground of Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, which was completed on August 28, 2006, but had already been acquired before the second public inspection and announcement date).

(2) According to Gap evidence Nos. 2-32, 47, 69, 79, 114, and 115, the Appointor D shall be June 2, 2006; the Appointor E shall be May 11, 2010; the Appointor F shall be July 11, 2008; the Appointor G shall be November 17, 2006; the Appointor H shall be on April 25, 2006; the Appointor H shall be recognized as having resided in each of the relevant residential buildings on December 8, 2006; and since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Appointor had resided in each of the relevant residential buildings on the date of the second public inspection and announcement after moving to the move-in report before the second public inspection and announcement, the above Appointor cannot also become a person entitled to compensation for housing relocation expenses.

(3) In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap 1 and 2 (including all other numbers except for the designated persons excluded from compensation for moving expenses), Eul 1 and Eul 2 with respect to the designated persons who cannot become eligible for compensation for relocation expenses as above 7. The plaintiff and the above designated persons shall own the pertinent residential building as of the date of the second public inspection and announcement of the improvement plan of the business of this case 7.0% of the total amount of 7.0% of the total amount of 10 households, 7.7% of the total amount of 70 households, 7.7% of the total amount of 80 households, 7.7% of the total amount of 70 households, 7.7% of the total amount of 80 households, 7.7% of the total amount of 70 households, 7.7% of the total amount of 10 households, 75% of the total amount of 7.5% of the total amount of 10 households, 75% of the total amount of 10 households, 7.5% of the above.7.

5. Conclusion

If so, the claims of the plaintiff and the remaining designated parties, excluding the Selection B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I, are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. The claims of the Selection B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-young

Judges Yellow-gu

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.