1. The defendant shall pay 19,653,981 won to the plaintiff.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned the instant housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu.

B. On September 17, 2010, the Goyang-si Seoul Metropolitan Government made a public announcement of the decision of the D urban renewal acceleration plan regarding the instant housing unit (hereinafter “instant public announcement date”); after authorization for the implementation of the project on September 11, 2015; and after authorization for the implementation of the management and disposal plan on March 2, 2018.

3.6. The instant housing was incorporated into B’s redevelopment and rearrangement project that announced the management and disposal plan.

C. According to the details of the payment of urban gas, electricity, and water rates of the instant housing, from October 199 to December 2019, a charge was imposed and paid in the Plaintiff’s name. There was no person claiming compensation in addition to the Plaintiff in the instant housing.

On the other hand, the Defendant, upon receiving a decision on the delivery of a building from the Jung-gu District Court 2018Gadan97043, sought enforcement against the Plaintiff who resides in the second floor of the instant housing as the same support E on March 5, 2020, and the enforcement officer met the Plaintiff.

3. A notice of voluntary surrender was given until 26.

[Evidence Evidence: Unsatisfy, Evidence A No. 1 to 4]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. Since Plaintiff’s assertion 1971 to April 1, 2020, while continuing to reside in the instant house with his family for about 50 years from 1971 to 50 years, the Defendant is obliged to pay the resettlement funds of KRW 12 million, KRW 5,514,374, and KRW 2,139,607.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff was not registered as a resident in the instant housing does not constitute a beneficiary of the resettlement subsidy.

C. The judgment below did not dispute the defendant with regard to housing relocation expenses and director expenses, and whether the resident had resided in the vicinity of the instant housing is not the resident registration, but the resident who had resided in the vicinity of the instant housing continued to reside for not less than 50 years (data attached to the preparatory document dated September 25, 2020), and the details of the use of urban gas.