Plaintiff

Large Two District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm L&C, Attorneys Kang Chang-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 10, 2009

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,963,918 won with 5% interest per annum from August 23, 2007 to March 17, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2005, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor designated and publicly announced as a rearrangement zone for a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project”) an area with a size of 165,070 square meters of KRW 1595,070,00 in Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City as a major improvement zone for a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the remaining head of the Busan Metropolitan City announced the project implementation authorization (hereinafter “instant project implementation authorization”) by designating the Defendant as the project implementer under Article 207-39 of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 2007-39 on August 22, 2007.

B. On April 29, 1975, the Plaintiff completed a move-in report with a resident registration building located in the area of this case as a building for residential purpose (number omitted) of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) and had been residing in the building of this case with two family members from that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the housing relocation expenses and director expenses to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(5) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Act”) and Articles 54(1) and (2) and 55 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, on August 22, 2007, which is the date of the public announcement of the authorization for the implementation of the instant project.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes a person eligible for subsidization for relocation expenses

(A) On April 29, 1975, the Plaintiff completed a move-in report for resident registration with the instant building on April 29, 1975 and maintained it until now. According to the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 13-2, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, on November 6, 1994, paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 115 million with respect to the first floor of the instant building and KRW 54.51 square meters with Nonparty 2, and the lease period of KRW 2,00,000,000 and KRW 50,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 7, 2003, based on the fact that the lease contract was concluded between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2 on July 20, 2005, and the lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2 on July 5, 2005, respectively, on the ground that the lease contract was concluded with the Plaintiff on July 20, 2003.

(B) On July 24, 2007, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was not a tenant at the time of August 22, 2007, who succeeded to the non-party 2's status as the non-party 3, and that the lease relationship was terminated around that time. Thus, according to the evidence No. 13-2, the Plaintiff's non-party 2 was not a tenant at the time of the announcement of the authorization for the project implementation of the instant building, and the Plaintiff's non-party 3 was not a beneficiary of the housing relocation expenses. Thus, according to the above Busan District Court's 2007Ra14089, which sought to transfer the building of this case to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's non-party 3 was not a tenant at the time of the notification of the authorization for the project implementation of the instant building, and the Plaintiff's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and it should not be paid the above rent.

(2) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of the past maturity period

(A) The defendant's argument

The defendant asserts to the purport that the right to claim for the cost of moving a house occurs as of the date of public announcement of project implementation authorization, but the timing of payment is the time of moving or removing after the approval of the management and disposal plan concerning the project of this case. Since the management and disposal plan has not yet been authorized, the plaintiff's right to claim for the cost of moving a house

(B) Determination

1) Residential relocation expenses and director expenses paid to tenants of residential buildings relocated following the implementation of public works pursuant to Article 78(5) of the Act and Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act and Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act shall have the nature of money paid from the social security level for tenants who have difficulty due to the policy purpose of encouraging early moving of tenants residing in the relevant public works implementation zone and moving of their residence. Thus, the tenant who is the tenant of residential buildings relocated due to the implementation of public works and resided in the relevant public works implementation zone for more than 3 months at the time of the public works project approval or the public works project approval under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are publicly notified pursuant to Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act shall be deemed to have the nature of money paid from the social security perspective to tenants who have difficulty in promoting the project implementation by encouraging early moving of tenants who reside in the relevant public works implementation zone (see Supreme Court Decision 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act).

2) Considering the above residential building’s relocation cost and the nature of director’s relocation cost, etc., it is reasonable to deem that a claim such as relocation cost is established and simultaneously reaches the due date. Barring any express provision, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit since the time when the tenant’s relocation cost and the due date when the claim for director’s relocation cost are established and the due date is separated.

(3) The amount of moving expenses and moving expenses.

(A) Comprehensively considering the aforementioned evidence and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Articles 54 and 55(2) [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the Plaintiff was residing in two family members in the building of not less than 66m2 and less than 9m2 (the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot, however, recognize the fact that the 1st floor of the instant building was not less than 89.95m2) but, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it can be recognized that the 11,271, 732 won [the 2,817, 933 won [the 2,817, 933 won [the 2,00 won [the 20th half of the date of authorization for the implementation of the project] 】 200 won [the 30th day of the instant building [the 207th day of the monthly average household expenses per 3m2, 2007] 】 the Defendant’s wage of not less than 20608m2.

(B) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 11,963,918, which the Plaintiff seeks within the scope of KRW 12,360,690, and 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from August 23, 2007 to March 17, 2009, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the public notice date of the authorization for the implementation of the project of this case, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Hong-jin (Presiding Judge)