Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment is modified as follows. A.

The defendant, the plaintiff 1 E and F. 1,309.

1. Outline of the basic fact-finding rearrangement project - Project name: J Housing Redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement project”): Defendant - Project implementer: K (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”): The date of public inspection and announcement of the rearrangement plan: (a) May 1, 2007; (b) the date of public announcement of the project implementation: January 9, 2012; (c) the date of public announcement of the compensation plan for the land, etc. to be incorporated: March 23, 2016; (d) the date of expropriation: February 27, 2017 (Plaintiff, EF, I); and (e) July 3, 2017 (Plaintiff H) the Plaintiffs are the owners of residential buildings within the instant rearrangement zone, who have become cash liquidationors because they failed to apply for sale to the Defendant, as they were the owners of residential buildings in the instant rearrangement zone.

The Defendant did not separately establish and implement relocation measures while implementing the instant improvement project, and the Plaintiffs sent a certificate of the details of resettlement funds, relocation expenses, and relocation expenses, and relocation expenses, and received them on June 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-5, 7, 8, Gap evidence 3, 7, 11, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion: (a) Plaintiff H and I agreed to receive an agreed amount under the pretext of resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and relocation expenses; and (b) subsequently, received the agreed amount from the Defendant in the instant improvement zone; and (c) thus, the said Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to protect rights

B. No. 4-1 and No. 2 (each compensation agreement) that seems consistent with the Defendant’s assertion cannot be deemed as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the petition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above agreement.

The defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that they resided in the pertinent building as the owner of a residential building in the instant improvement zone, and that they moved out of the rearrangement zone due to the implementation of the instant improvement project.