1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and consolidation project association established to implement housing redevelopment and rearrangement projects with the area of project implementation of 38,650 square meters located in Nam-gu, Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was authorized to establish an association by the head of Daegu-gu head of the Gu, and the authorization was issued on March 18, 2019, and the said authorization was publicly notified on March 20, 2019.

B. The defendant occupies and uses the attached real estate.

C. On June 9, 2020, the Plaintiff deposited 697,900 won for director’s expenses to the Defendant.

(No. 3570 of this Court 2020 s. 3570 s. 3570 s. s. 35) s. s. 1 to 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff has the right to possess and use the previous land or buildings within the Plaintiff’s project implementation district pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Act, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the said real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant's directors' expenses are too small and thus cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

The right to claim compensation for resettlement funds, relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses (director's expenses) of residents and tenants of residential buildings that have been moved due to the public works legally implemented under the Urban Improvement Act is the right under public law. The lawsuit related to the compensation is not a civil lawsuit but an administrative litigation for legal relations under public law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8129 Decided May 29, 2008). As can be seen, a project implementer’s obligation to calculate and compensate expenses incurred in transporting movable property to residents and tenants of residential buildings, such as expenses incurred in moving their residence and household effects, is a public law obligation, whereas a project implementer’s obligation to deliver real estate to a project implementer who acquired ownership by lawful expropriation procedures is a real estate owner.