1. Of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance, payment of the director’s expense, 91,944 won, which became final and conclusive in the above judgment of remand.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought compensation for losses and delay damages therefrom (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) from the first instance court, and the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 4,953,60, and KRW 12,000,00 for resettlement settlement money, ③ the relocation cost of KRW 8,187,790, and ④ the relocation cost of KRW 1,177,850 for the Plaintiff.

The first instance court accepted the plaintiff's claim to increase the compensation for losses, and dismissed the remaining claims, and only the plaintiff appealed.

Accordingly, the part of the judgment of winning the Plaintiff in the first instance court, namely, 4,953,600 won and the part of the order to pay 5% per annum from December 13, 2014 to December 4, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment, was finalized.

The court prior to the remand accepted most of the plaintiff's appeal, and accepted all of the claim for resettlement funds and relocation expenses, and partly accepted the claim for relocation expenses (91,944 out of KRW 1,17,850).

With respect to this, only the defendant filed an appeal, and the Supreme Court reversed the part against the defendant regarding the settlement money and the cost of moving residence among the part against the defendant, and dismissed the remainder of the defendant's appeal.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court prior to the remand becomes final and conclusive separately, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the parts that were reversed and remanded, i.e., the Plaintiff’s settlement funds and the Plaintiff’s claim for relocation expenses.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff initially owned 1/3 of the building of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-gi-28 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the zone of the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Housing Redevelopment Project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”), but did not enter into a sales contract within the period for the application for parcelling-out (from June 21, 2012 to June 24, 2012) and became a person subject to cash settlement on June 25, 2012, and the Defendant pursuant to the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).