[Attachment 1] Plaintiff 1 and seven others

[Attachment 2] Plaintiff 1 and 81 (Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Kim-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 8, 2011

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap17489 Decided November 26, 2010

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiffs 1 2 and 8 shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 12 and 8 the amount of money corresponding to the plaintiff 12 and the amount of money corresponding to the plaintiff 1 and the amount of money corresponding to the above 20% per annum from November 11, 2010 to the day of full payment.

2. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs 1 (Plaintiff 1 in the judgment of the Supreme Court), 1, 3 (Plaintiff 2 in the judgment of the Supreme Court), 1, 4 (Plaintiff 3 in the judgment of the Supreme Court), 1, 5 (Plaintiff 4 in the judgment of the Supreme Court), 16 (Plaintiff 5 in the judgment of the Supreme Court), and 17 (Plaintiff 6 in the judgment of the Supreme Court), and Defendant’s appeal are dismissed.

3. All the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, respectively, for the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the defendant, and for the remaining costs of appeal arising between the plaintiffs 1, 2, 8, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 20% of the amount per annum from the day after the copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case is served to the day of complete payment with respect to each plaintiff's corresponding amount and each of the above amounts stated in the attached Form 3 compensation statement.

2. Purport of appeal

The plaintiff in attached Form 1: The part concerning the plaintiffs in attached Form 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs listed in attached Form 1 20% of the amount per annum from the next day of service of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment with regard to each plaintiff's corresponding amount and each of the above amounts stated in attached Form 3.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant as to the plaintiffs 15, 21, 29, 29, 20, 40, 42, 50, and 70 among the plaintiffs listed in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the above part of the plaintiffs' claim as to the revocation is dismissed. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the remaining plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 15, 21, 29, 29, 24, 40, 42, 50, and 70 among the plaintiffs listed in

1. Basic facts

A. On September 10, 2005, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Dongdaemun-gu”) publicly announced the residents’ public inspection of the land size of 150,875.2 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government’s public announcement of September 10, 2005, and publicly announced the residents’ public inspection of the land size of 150,875.2 square meters as the Seoul Metropolitan City’s residential redevelopment zone. The Mayor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and announced the above improvement

B. On October 2, 2006, the Defendant obtained authorization for the establishment of the partnership from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Office, and on June 29, 2007, obtained authorization for the implementation plan for the housing redevelopment project with respect to the total area of 152,065.2m2m2 (hereinafter “instant project area”) from Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 2 omitted), and the approval for the implementation plan was publicly announced on July 5, 2007.

C. The Plaintiffs respectively reside in the residential building located within the instant business area from each of the dates indicated in the separate list of the details of the relocation of the residence in the attached Table 4.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Plaintiffs leased a residential building incorporated into the instant project zone and had resided in the period of three months or longer from that time until the date of the public notice for inspection of the instant residents, and were relocated due to the implementation of the said improvement project, Article 78(1), (5), and (9) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) and Articles 54(2) and 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 126 of Apr. 12, 2007; hereinafter “new Enforcement Rule”), the Plaintiffs constitutes a person eligible for relocation expenses and director expenses. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs a four-month relocation expenses and director expenses according to the number of household members as of the date of authorization for project implementation.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) As to the Plaintiffs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7

The base date for determining the person eligible for compensation for the relocation cost of this case is September 10, 2005, which is the date of public notice for the residents' inspection of the proposed redevelopment improvement zone designation (the proposal), and the attached Table 1 Plaintiffs 1, 3, 5, 7, and 6 as of the above base date cannot be deemed as the true tenant.

2) As to the Plaintiffs 1 and 4

The plaintiff 14 is not the tenant who has resided in the attached Form 14 for at least three months prior to the public announcement date of the public inspection, and it is not the claimant for relocation

3) As to the Plaintiffs 2, 40, and 50

The non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the member of the household of the plaintiff 40, who is the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the plaintiff 50, shall be excluded from the cost of moving the residence to the relevant member after the date of public inspection

4) As to the Plaintiffs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 2, 2, 2, 2, 10, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72 (Plaintiff 21)

In accordance with the proviso of Article 54 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 126 of Apr. 12, 2007; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule”), which is the date of the public inspection of the residents of this case, the above plaintiffs who applied for the purchase of rental housing to the defendant pursuant to the proviso of Article 54 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act (amended by Ordinance

5) As to all of the plaintiffs

Pursuant to Article 54 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Gu, housing relocation expenses shall be paid for three months according to the number of household members.

3. Determination

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Attached Form 5 shall be as listed in attached Table 5.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Except for Plaintiffs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 4, 2, 40, and 50, the rest of Plaintiffs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 4, 2, 40, and 50, the number of household members of the same Table in each corresponding date indicated in the “the date of commencement of residence” in the attached Table 4 (the fact that there is no dispute between the above Plaintiffs and the Defendant) were resided and

2) On April 27, 200, Plaintiff 1 made a move-in report to the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jeondong (number 3 omitted) on April 27, 200, and ② The lease contract submitted by the said Plaintiff was not subject to a fixed date. The contract term is stipulated as “from April 22, 2000 to the time of migration” and is written as “he cooperation in time of migration according to the schedule of the cooperative.”

3) On May 9, 2003, Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 3 filed a move-in report with the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jeondong (number 4 omitted). ② The lease contract submitted by the said Plaintiff was concluded with Nonparty 3 on April 18, 2005, and Nonparty 3 acquired the ownership of the said building on September 27, 2005.

4) On June 27, 2005, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 4 filed a move-in report with the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 5 omitted) on June 27, 2005. ② The lease contract submitted by the said Plaintiff did not obtain a fixed date, and ③ there was no specific data about the said Plaintiff’s actual residence before the move-in report date

5) Plaintiffs 1 and 5 filed a move-in report on September 26, 1995 on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jeondong (number 6 omitted), and on April 19, 2006, the same (number 7 omitted). ② The said Plaintiff did not submit a move-in report on the lease contract for Jeondong (number 6 omitted). ③ There was no specific data that the said Plaintiff was a tenant of the building for Jeondong (number 6 omitted). ④ The lease agreement submitted by the said Plaintiff was about Jeondong-dong (number 7 omitted) and was drafted as of April 18, 2006.

6) On May 7, 2005, Plaintiff 6 filed a move-in report on May 7, 2005, on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jeondong (number 8 omitted), and on March 13, 2006, on the same (number 9 omitted). ② The lease contract submitted by the said Plaintiff to the Defendant is concluded on February 21, 2006.

7) Plaintiff 17 filed a move-in report on October 2, 199 on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jeondong (number 10 omitted), and on January 5, 2007, the same (number 11 omitted). ② The said Plaintiff did not submit a move-in report on the lease contract for Jeondong (number 10 omitted). ③ There was no specific data that the said Plaintiff was a tenant of Jeondong-dong (number 10 omitted), and ④ each lease agreement submitted by the said Plaintiff was made on March 31, 2004 and January 5, 2007.

8) There is no evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the wife of Nonparty 40, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 2, Nonparty 50, who were the wife of Nonparty 2, had resided for at least three months at the date of the public inspection of the instant residents.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, evidence 5 through 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27 through 36, 38, 39, 40, 42 through 45, 47, 49 through 88, 90 through 93, 95 through 111, 4, 95 through 111, 5 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination as to the occurrence of relocation expenses

1) Criteria for determination

It is reasonable to view that the compensation for the housing relocation expenses for the tenants of residential buildings under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is subject to the persons who have resided in the relevant rearrangement zone for not less than three months as of the date of public inspection and announcement of the improvement plan, when it becomes possible for residents, etc. to be aware that the rearrangement project will be implemented due to the public announcement of the improvement plan (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16824, Sept. 9, 2010). Therefore, the basic date for determining the compensation for the housing relocation expenses of this case is September 10, 2005, which is the date of public announcement for the residents' public inspection of the redevelopment improvement zone (draft). Therefore, the above public announcement date should be excluded from

2) As to the Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

A) The lease contract submitted by Plaintiff 1 on April 22, 200, which was before the Defendant obtained authorization for establishment (O. 2, 2006) and entered into a contract on April 22, 200, which was before the Defendant’s establishment approval (O. 2, 2006), and it is difficult to believe the above contract as it is, and it is insufficient to recognize only the statement of No. 112-1 of the evidence No. 112. The above Plaintiff failed to submit materials to prove that the Plaintiff is a genuine tenant as of June 10, 2005, which was three months prior to the date of the public inspection announcement. Thus, it is difficult to recognize the above Plaintiff as

B) The lease contract submitted by Plaintiff 13 was concluded by the lessor five months prior to the acquisition of ownership by the lessor, and it is difficult to believe the above contract as it is, and it is insufficient to recognize the above contract merely with the statement of No. 112-3, and as long as the above Plaintiff failed to submit materials, etc. to prove that it is a true tenant as of June 10, 2005, which was three months prior to the date of the public announcement of the public inspection, the above Plaintiff is difficult to recognize as a true tenant

C) Since the Plaintiff 4 made a move-in report on June 27, 2005 to the Jeondong (number 5 omitted), it cannot be deemed as a tenant who resided for at least three months prior to the date on which the resident inspection was announced for the public inspection, and according to the evidence No. 34-6 through No. 8, Nonparty 4, 5, and 6, the above Plaintiff 4 and the above Plaintiff 4 were moving-in report to the Jeondong-dong (number 12 omitted) located within the instant business area on May 4, 2005, even though it is recognized that the above Plaintiff was unable to submit the lease agreement and the payment data of rent as of June 10, 2005, which is three months prior to the date on which the public inspection was announced, it is difficult to recognize that the above Plaintiff and the above Plaintiff 4 were true tenants.

D) Where Plaintiffs 15, 6, and 7 resided in the instant project zone and moved into the same zone after the date of the public inspection announcement, but as of June 10, 2005, when the above Plaintiffs were based on June 10, 2005, which was three months before the date of the public inspection announcement, they should be recognized that they were the true tenants with respect to the place of residence before the directors. However, it is not sufficient to recognize only the items in the evidence No. 112-4 or 6, and as long as they did not submit different supporting lease agreement and rent payment data, it is difficult to recognize the above Plaintiffs as the true tenants as of June 10, 2005.

3) As to the remaining plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

A) According to the above facts, the rest of the plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 2, as of September 10, 2005, which was the date of the public notice for the public inspection of the residents of this case, were residing in the residential building located in the rearrangement zone of this case as of September 10, 2005. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the relocation expenses and directors' expenses corresponding to the number of their own household members to the rest of the above plaintiffs pursuant to Articles 54(2) and (3), and

B) Meanwhile, among the remaining plaintiffs, the issue is whether an application for the purchase of rental housing can be filed for the payment of housing relocation expenses, and thus, it is examined as to [Attachment 12, Attached 2, Attached 2, 10, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, and 72 (Plaintiff 16)].

(1) Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Rule clearly specifies the obligation of compensation for housing relocation expenses to the tenants of residential buildings, but excluded the tenants who received the right to move into the housing pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, but Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Rule deleted the exceptions of compensation for housing relocation expenses under the former Enforcement Rule. However, Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Rule provides that Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Rule provides that after the enforcement of this Rule, the amended provisions of Article 15(2) of the former Enforcement Rule provides that the compensation plan shall be publicly announced pursuant to Article 15 of the Act, and the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Public Works Act (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007) provides that the project implementer shall publicly notify the outline of public works, the contents of land and goods protocols, and the timing, method, and procedure for compensation through a daily newspaper distributed across the country, respectively.

However, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number), it is recognized that the defendant received a tenant's opinion regarding the desire for housing redevelopment rental housing and housing relocation expenses from the tenants in the instant project area before April 12, 2007, the enforcement date of the new Enforcement Rule, but the above procedure is merely to determine the applicant among tenants, and it cannot be deemed as equivalent to the public notice and notification of a legitimate compensation plan under Article 15 of the Public Works Act. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant made such public notification in a daily newspaper distributed nationwide prior to April 12, 2007, which is the enforcement date of the new Enforcement Rule.

Therefore, the public announcement and notification of a legitimate compensation plan related to the implementation of the project of this case shall be deemed to have been made after April 12, 2007, which is the enforcement date of the new Enforcement Rule. Therefore, in accordance with Article 4 of the Addenda of the new Enforcement Rule, the new Enforcement Rule shall apply to the compensation for housing relocation expenses due to the implementation

(2) In addition, even if there are circumstances that the above plaintiffs applied for the right to move into a rental housing, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have renounced the right to claim the cost of moving into a housing (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du3685, Jul. 14, 201).

(3) Ultimately, even if the above plaintiffs applied for the sale of rental housing, they do not accept this part of the defendant's assertion since they did not have an impact on becoming the beneficiary of housing relocation expenses.

(d) Calculation of relocation expenses, etc.;

1) As to whether a member of the household is recognized (as to the attached Form 2 Plaintiffs 40, 50)

According to the above facts, it is difficult to view that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, Nonparty 50, the wife of Plaintiff 2 and Nonparty 2, the wife of Plaintiff 40, are members of the household who move due to the implementation of the instant project.

Therefore, since the above members of the household should be excluded from the cost of moving their residence, the defendant's argument on it is reasonable.

2) As to the payment of relocation expenses for four-months (as to the whole plaintiffs who can receive relocation expenses)

Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Rule set the cost of moving a house for three months for the person eligible for the payment of the cost of moving a house. However, Article 54(2) of the new Enforcement Rule revised the payment amount as the cost of moving a house for four months. However, as seen earlier, the new Enforcement Rule applies to the compensation for the cost of moving a house due to the implementation of the project in this case, so the defendant shall compensate the above plaintiffs for the cost of moving a house for four months. Therefore, the defendant's assertion on

3) The amount of moving expenses and moving expenses.

A) Relocation expenses;

① The monthly average household expenditure per household by the number of household members in the quarter of March 4, 2007, which falls under July 5, 2007, which is the date of the public announcement of the authorization to implement the instant project (urban workers Gu).

Not less than 2,186,309 won 2,817,933,277,734 won 3,435,526 won 3,579,032 won for 3,579,032

* 1: 1,838,129 won [2,186,309 won - (3,579,032 won - 2,186,309 won) ± 4];

(2) Calculation formula.

- One-person household: 7,352,516 won (1,838,129 won x 4 months);

- Two households: 8,745,236 won (2,186,309 won x 4 months);

- Three households: 11,271,732 won (2,817,933 won x 4 months);

- Four households: 13,110,936 won (3,277,734 won x 4 months);

- Five households: 13,742,104 won (3,435,526 won x 4 months);

- Six households: 14,316,128 won (3,579,032 won x 4 months);

(3) Amount of relocation expenses for dwelling.

- Each corresponding money for each plaintiff written in the column of "resident relocation expenses" in the attached Table 3 compensation statement;

[Ground of recognition] Facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence No. 3, and substantial facts to this court

B) Directors’ expenses

(1) Wages.

- 57,820 won for each ordinary person of the first half of July 5, 2007 (the second half of September 1, 2007 shall apply from September 1, 2007)

(2) Vehicle fares.

- 100,000 won (the maximum loading capacity of five tons per day of the same criteria)

(3) Calculation formula.

- A house building area of less than 33 square meters: 314,479 won

Wages of 173,460 won (57,820 won x 3) + 100,000 (100,000 won x 1st) + 41,019 won (wages + vehicle fares) for packing expenses of 41,019}

- Housing building volume of not less than 33§³ and less than 49.5§³: 495,972 won

Wages 231,280 won (57,820 won x 4) + 200,000 (100,000 won x 2) + 64,692 won (wages + vehicle fares x 0.15) for packing expenses.

- Housing building volume of not less than 49.5§³ and less than 66§³: 619,965 won

Wages 289,100 won (57,820 won x 5 person) + 250,000 (100,000 won x 2.5) + packing expenses 80,865 won (wages + vehicle fares x 0.15)

- Housing building volume of not less than 66С and less than 9§³: 743,958 won

Wages of 346,920 won (57,820 won x 6) + 300,000 (100,000 won x 3) + 41,019 won (wages + vehicle fares) for packing expenses of 41,019}

(4) The amount of director expenses.

- The amount corresponding to each of the plaintiffs stated in the “director fee” column in the attached Form 3 compensation statement;

[Ground of recognition] Facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence No. 4, and substantial facts to this court

C) Deduction of the amount received;

With respect to the plaintiffs Nos. 8, 39 through 73, and 82 through 90 of the attached Table 3 compensation statement, each corresponding money in the column of the "amount received" in the attached Table 3 compensation statement.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy

4) Sub-committee

The defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 11, 2010 to the date following the date on which a copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case is delivered to the remaining plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 11, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the amount calculated by deducting the amount received from the sum of the pertinent housing relocation expenses and director expenses in attached Table 3 attached hereto. (Partial recognized money for plaintiffs 15, 21, 29, 29, 40, 42, 50, 70 among the remaining plaintiffs, and all other plaintiffs shall be recognized as the project implementation authorization of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 21, 29, 20, 40, 42, 50, and 70, and all of the claims of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 29, and 2, 40, 42, 50, and 70 shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims of the above plaintiffs shall be dismissed as without reasonable grounds. The part against the plaintiffs 2, and 8 in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and the part against the above plaintiffs shall be revoked in its entirety, and the appeal of the plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the appeal of the defendant shall be dismissed as per the Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)