1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2006, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Eunpyeong-gu”) made a public inspection announcement for residents’ public inspection to designate B-house redevelopment improvement zone (the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement D) with respect to approximately 60,709 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant improvement zone”) in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and on October 1, 2009, made a public announcement of the project implementation plan for the housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) implemented in the instant improvement zone.

B. The Defendant is the developer of the instant project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which was established on December 18, 2007.

C. From December 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that from Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-dong (the legal Dong refers to the “Fdong” or the “E-dong”) G housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) located in the instant improvement zone, the Plaintiff leased part of the housing located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-dong (the “Fdong” or the administrative Dong”) and resided together with four family members, and filed an application for payment of the tenant’s housing relocation expenses against the Defendant on January 12, 2016

In regard to this, the Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff’s housing relocation cost on the ground that “the Plaintiff was partially leased from H, whose father was his father, and the details of the payment of the lease deposit are not clear, and thus the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as the tenant.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 5 and Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. From December 12, 2004, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) leased part of the instant housing from his father H to KRW 20,000,00; (b) resided in the instant housing together with his family members ( wife I, his wife J, and K); and (c) on April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff moved out of the instant housing project area.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a tenant of a residential building under Article 54 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.