1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following changes from the fifth to the third fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, a project executor, bears the obligation to pay resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and director expenses (hereinafter “resident relocation expenses, etc.”) prescribed by the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, which are applied mutatis mutandis under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and Article 78(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 53(2), 54(1), and 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, etc. of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, which are applied mutatis mutandis under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas

Housing relocation expenses, etc. recognized by the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects have the nature of money to be paid on the social security level by encouraging early relocation of residents living in the implementation zone of the relevant public work project to smoothly implement the project, and taking into account the policy purpose of the residents living in the implementation zone of the relevant public work project and the purpose of the residents suffering from special difficulties due to the relocation of their residence. Therefore, the right to claim for the relocation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8129 Decided May 29, 2008). On the other hand, the Defendant’s real estate delivery obligation is a private law obligation and arising from a cause different from the above house relocation cost, and its legal nature and payment purpose are different. Unless otherwise provided in the Act, the obligation to pay the house relocation cost borne by the project implementer and the obligation to deliver the building to the project implementer according to the accommodation procedure is mutually meaningful or equitable.