A. On December 2, 2013, the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor: (a) publicly announced the designation of the housing redevelopment improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”); and (b) on November 10, 2016, the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City publicly announced that the housing redevelopment project in the instant improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) applied for authorization for the implementation of the housing redevelopment project in the relevant improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement project”).

B. On November 26, 2003, the Defendant is a housing redevelopment improvement project partnership that implements the instant rearrangement project, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for F [Road Name Address: Daegu North-gu G] ground housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) in the instant rearrangement zone, and completed the move-in report on the instant housing on March 2, 2004.

C. On January 31, 2017, the head of Daegu Metropolitan City announced the project implementation authorization for the instant rearrangement project. D.

On July 15, 2019, an expropriation ruling was made on the instant housing.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant housing on November 26, 2003, prior to the public announcement date of the public inspection of the instant rearrangement project, and continued to reside until September 10, 2019, which is the starting date of the instant expropriation after transferring it on March 2, 2004.

From April 18, 2013 to May 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report to another place, other than the instant house, but this was formed to register with the welfare center for the elderly in Daegu North-gu, which was actually residing in the instant house during that period.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,00,000, KRW 4,373,30, and KRW 2,205,829, a sum of KRW 18,579, and KRW 159.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

(c) judgment;