1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

(a) Outline of the rearrangement project: The project implementer of the rearrangement project for B housing redevelopment (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement project”): The defendant rearrangement zone: The public announcement of the implementation approval on October 17, 2008: Public announcement of the implementation approval on September 9, 2010: the date of expropriation adjudication on July 24, 2017: November 29, 2017.

1) The Plaintiff’s status 1) The Plaintiff, a residential building located within the instant rearrangement project zone, is the Gyeyang-gu D Building E (hereinafter “instant housing”).

A) The owner of the instant housing was eligible for cash settlement because he/she did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period set by the Defendant, and became eligible for cash settlement. 2) The Plaintiff was moving into the instant housing before October 17, 2008, which was the date of the public inspection of the improvement plan. However, the Plaintiff transferred on December 16, 2009, and transferred on April 30, 2010, 2000, after moving into the instant housing again on April 30, 2010, the date of the adjudication of expropriation, to another place on July 2, 2018 (In Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu).

3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s children I (the birth of December 198), sonJ (the birth of April 1991), and 3 former spouse K transferred the resident registration of the instant housing from before the date of the public announcement of the maintenance plan to maintain their domicile from the date of the public announcement of the public inspection of the maintenance plan, and thereafter, they moved to another place on March 23, 2018 (the Incheon Gyeyang-gu L apartment M) (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul’s evidence 3, Eul’s evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, the entire purport of the pleadings.

2. Whether the obligation to pay relocation expenses or resettlement subsidies arises;

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion and the key issues are demanding the Defendant to pay KRW 10,231,632 at the cost of moving the residence, and KRW 11,461,506 at the settlement money for resettlement.

(Jointly, 21,693,138 won. The issue of this case is the owner of a residential building, who has not changed the purport of the claim.