1. The Defendant: (a) 22,217,451 won to Plaintiff A; (b) 17,86,989 won to Plaintiff B; (c) 21,030,175 won to Plaintiff C; and (d) 17.

1. Basic facts

(a) A summary of a rearrangement project - A project name: A project area for the redevelopment and improvement of H housing in Chang-si: A project area: 39,060 square meters per day in Chang-si, Chang-si: A project implementer: The public inspection and publication date of an improvement plan: June 26, 2006 - Public announcement of an approval for project implementation on March 7, 2008 (J of public announcement in Mapo-si): The date of expropriation ruling on May 29, 2018: the date of commencement of expropriation on July 20, 2018;

The plaintiffs' status and the number of family members of the plaintiffs - the owner of the plaintiff - the number of family members of the plaintiff - the number of family members of the plaintiff - one of the plaintiff 3, B, D, E, and F in the instant business area - The above plaintiff's spouse K transferred his/her resident registration to Daegu L on July 9, 2007, but transferred to the above plaintiff's house on October 18, 2012 - The number of family members of the plaintiff - The above plaintiff's children other than the plaintiff's plaintiff were transferred to the plaintiff's house N in Mapo-si on December 18, 2009 but transferred his/her resident registration to the above plaintiff's house on October 25, 2016, without any dispute over the above plaintiff's transfer to the plaintiff's house on October 25, 2016, each entry of Gap's 1 through 10 (including

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiffs are the owners of buildings within the instant project district. The defendant is obligated to pay housing relocation expenses, directors' expenses, resettlement funds, etc. that are reasonable for the number of members of each household in the instant project district.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that housing relocation expenses for the Plaintiffs should be applied to the household expenditure based on the date the authorization for project implementation is given. Since the Plaintiff C and G’s family members did not continue to reside within the instant project area, it should be excluded from the number of household members for the purpose of calculating the housing relocation expenses.

B. (1) Determination (1) The Plaintiffs’ resettlement subsidy amounting to KRW 12,00,00,000 for each of the plaintiffs C’ relocation subsidy amounting to KRW 1,990,135, the remainder of the plaintiffs’ relocation subsidy amounting to KRW 1,492,601, and all of the plaintiffs’ relocation subsidy amounting to KRW 1,492,601. (2) The criteria for calculating the relocation subsidy amount pursuant to Article 65(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter