1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,861,620 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 24, 2017 to October 26, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced on October 22, 2007, the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement of the improvement project, which was the public announcement of the renewal acceleration plan for the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D.

The Defendant obtained approval for the establishment of the above rearrangement zone (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”) and implemented a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) in the above rearrangement zone.

On August 16, 2013, there was a public announcement of authorization to implement the project of this case, and on April 30, 2015, there was a public announcement of authorization to implement the project of this case.

B. The Plaintiff’s residential situation where the Plaintiff resided in part of the first floor of an unauthorized house on the land of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant house”) within the instant rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant house”) from the lessee G, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of housing relocation expenses and director expenses to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff made a move-in report on February 9, 2006 on the instant housing.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 2 through 11, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the tenant who was a director of the instant house before October 2, 2006 and actually resided from around 1, 2006, which was from October 22, 2007, the date of the public inspection and announcement of the instant rearrangement zone, and thereafter, the Plaintiff moved out of the rearrangement zone by implementing the instant rearrangement project.

Therefore, the Defendant is seeking payment of KRW 9,280,000, based on one person household under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Works Act”).

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion is questionable as to whether the tenant, who is not the tenant, also recognized as the tenant under the Public Works Act, has the right to claim the transfer of a house and the right to claim the payment of director's expenses. The plaintiff cannot be seen as having actually resided in the housing structure of this case.