1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,671,177 as well as 5% per annum from June 8, 2017 to September 27, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) Authorization and announcement of project implementation - Project name: B housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “project in this case”): The location and size of the rearrangement zone: Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, 299,671 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”): The date of public inspection and announcement of the designation of the rearrangement zone: May 29, 2008 - the date of project implementation authorization: December 3, 2013; the project implementer: the Defendant;

B. On October 2, 2003, the Plaintiff leased and resided in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Multi-household Housing (hereinafter “instant Housing”) in the instant improvement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff housing relocation expenses and director expenses, since he leased and resided in the instant house from October 2, 2003 to move to the Plaintiff due to the implementation of the instant project.

B. According to Article 78(5) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor and Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the relocation cost paid to the tenants of residential buildings relocated following the implementation of public works for public works is the amount of money paid on the social security level for tenants who will suffer special difficulties due to the purpose of promoting the project by encouraging the early relocation of tenants residing in the relevant zone where the public works are performed, and due to the relocation of their residence. Thus, the tenant of residential buildings relocated due to the implementation of public works is deemed to fall under Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and who has resided in the relevant public works implementation zone for more than three months at the time of the public works approval or the announcement under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the public works.