1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The case shall be transferred to the Seoul Administrative Court.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiffs alleged that they resided in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. D, 203, and ESD 401, and each of the above real estate was included in CHousing redevelopment improvement projects, and sought reimbursement of directors' expenses against the defendant.

2. Ex officio determination is made by the defendant. The defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and Article 78(5) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) and Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013), which applies mutatis mutandis to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) provide that the resident of a residential building to be incorporated in a zone where public works are performed shall be compensated by calculating and compensat the expenses incurred in moving his/her residence and the expenses

However, the director's expenses paid under Article 78 (5) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and Article 55 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall be deemed to have the nature of the amount of money paid on the level of social security for tenants who will suffer special difficulties due to the policy purpose of encouraging early relocation of tenants residing in the relevant public work implementation zone and the relocation of their dwelling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2435, Apr. 27, 2006). Therefore, the director's compensation claim is the right under public law, and therefore, the litigation over the payment of director's expenses is not a civil procedure, but under public law.