Defendant B’s building indicated in the separate sheet 7.1, Defendant C, and Defendant D are jointly listed in the separate sheet 11.1.

The judgment on the cause of the claim is a housing redevelopment project partnership with the housing redevelopment project district of 174,801 square meters in Yangcheon-gu in Seoul, Yangcheon-gu. As a result, on December 10, 2015, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport held the real estate in the attached list as the owner or lessee of the building located within the said project district, and the fact that the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for expropriation against the Defendants on November 7, 2016 that the Plaintiff deposited the compensation for expropriation against the Defendants on or around November 7, 2016 does not conflict between the parties, or that it can be recognized according to the overall purport of each entry and pleading in Gap 1 through 6 (including the number of pages

Thus, the defendants have the duty to deliver their own real estate to the plaintiff.

The defendants asserts that the defendants cannot deliver the relevant real estate to the plaintiff until they are paid the resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and director expenses, etc.

However, since Article 78(1) and (5) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 53 through 55 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act have the nature of the amount of money paid on the social security level for the owners, etc. of residential buildings, etc. who have been relocated due to the legally implemented public works, who will suffer special difficulties due to the purpose of the policy to facilitate the implementation of the project by encouraging the early relocation of the owners, etc. who reside in the zone where the relevant public works are performed, and thus, the claim for compensation for the relocation expenses, relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses, are the rights under public law, not civil litigation, but legal relations under public law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8129 Decided May 29, 2008). Therefore, the Defendants asserted.