1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following: “The instant building was the first house of the first instance judgment; and “The instant land was incorporated into the project site of the instant case” under Section 15 and 16 of the second half of the judgment; “The instant land was incorporated into the project site of the instant case,” and “the Defendant would acquire the instant land and building upon consultation.” As such, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Paragraph (2) of the same Article, and this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a general restaurant with the public record, but it purchased the instant building that was actually used for residential purposes and used it for residential purposes. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff housing relocation expenses under Article 54 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 427, Jan. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Public Works Act”) and director expenses under Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Public Works Act.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination of the cost of moving a residential building that is to be paid to the owner of a residential building that is to move following the implementation of a public project has the nature of money to be paid on the level of social security for the policy purpose to facilitate the implementation of the project by encouraging early moving of the owners who reside in the relevant zone where the public project is implemented and for the owners who are to suffer special difficulties due to the relocation of a residential (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2435, Apr. 27, 2006). On the other hand, as to whether a person subject to relocation measures falls under a person who has already been permitted or reported for any purpose other than a residential purpose.