1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On September 22, 2011, the Defendant approved and publicly announced the implementation plan for a district development project on the same day, which is 93,000 square meters, including Sii-si B and C, and registered the BB block project on the list of obstacles, not the lot number in the public record, according to the current status of BB block block model housing, 57.2 square meters and B block block model housing, and 1.2 square meters and b block roof 1.2 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”) located within the said project area, and indicated the ownership as co-owners.

The Plaintiff, who became aware of the fact that the instant building was not registered in the list of obstacles to lot numbers entered in the public register, had the wife F of E purchase the said building on December 10, 201, and completed the move-in report on December 13, 201.

The F completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building on February 8, 2012, and the Plaintiff was a director of the instant building around that time.

On October 30, 2012, the Defendant publicly announced the compensation plan for the land, buildings, etc. incorporated into the above urban development project zone, and F raised an objection to the purport that the building owner is the principal and the lot number is inconsistent with the entry entered in the public record.

Accordingly, according to the records of obstacles, the Defendant corrected the ownership number of the building of this case to F, to B at Silung-si, and paid KRW 53,517,400 on March 14, 2013 by purchasing the building of this case from F around February 12, 2013.

On the other hand, the Defendant rejected the payment of compensation on the ground that the Plaintiff, as the tenant of the instant building, demanded the reimbursement of housing relocation expenses and director expenses, did not constitute the case where the Plaintiff had resided for at least three months at the time of September 22, 2011, which was the authorization date of the implementation plan for

From March 25, 2014 to the Plaintiff several times, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff to execute the removal counter execution of the instant building, and conducted the removal counter execution around September 12, 2014. Among them, the Plaintiff, who promised to move to the instant building by July 30, 2014, raises an objection to administrative dispositions, such as administrative vicarious execution, etc. by the Defendant when failing to perform its duty.