1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 9, 2009, the Defendant obtained authorization to establish an association from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and is a maintenance and improvement project partnership that implements a housing redevelopment improvement project in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) and the Plaintiff resided in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Ground Housing (hereinafter “instant Housing”) located in the said rearrangement zone from October 11, 2002 to October 30, 2014, and was directors of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and 110 Dong 204.

B. The instant housing is owned by the Plaintiff’s mother, consisting of two-storys of brick structure sloping roof and cement block block structure 112.42 square meters (the 1st floor, 2.91 square meters, 17.91 square meters; hereinafter “the 2nd floor housing”) and cement block structure and 72.45 square meters of the 72.45 square meters of the 2nd floor, which are annexed buildings (hereinafter “the instant single-story housing”), cement block structure 5.25 square meters of the 25th floor, cement block slive roof, and cement block structure slive roof, and 5.28 square meters of the toilet 5.28 square meters of the 2nd floor.

【Ground for recognition】 Evidence No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on October 11, 2002 by the mother of F to lease the instant single-story housing incorporated in the instant improvement zone from F, and thereafter, to pay resident tax for about 12 years as the householder and to move to Korea due to the implementation of the said project. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff housing relocation expenses under Article 54 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 3, although it is recognized that the plaintiff paid a total of KRW 78,000 resident tax from 202 to 2014, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the owner of the housing of this case, who is the owner of the housing of this case.