1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the status of the tenant of the rental apartment among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Basic facts

(a) Outline of the rearrangement project: The project implementer of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan Government 90,559.8 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”): The public notice of approval for the implementation of the rearrangement project on January 12, 2009: The public notice of approval for the implementation of the rearrangement project on November 16, 2015: the management and disposal plan for the rearrangement project on January 23, 2017.

From around 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that from the point of view of 2008, as a tenant, the Plaintiff resided in the part of the first floor housing among the second floor housing and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D ground brick slves located in the instant improvement zone, and the Defendant is arguing that the Plaintiff is not the tenant as the land owner of the instant building, E’s fraudulent act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the status of a tenant of a rental apartment among the instant lawsuit is lawful, asserting that the Defendant is obligated to supply a rental house to the Plaintiff who is a tenant under Article 50(4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017); Article 54(2) and [Attachment Table 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28628, Feb. 9, 2018); and that the Plaintiff did not supply a rental apartment to the Plaintiff; thus, the Plaintiff

Each of the above provisions is a provision on the qualification, etc. of a lessee as determined by a project implementer in the course of implementing an improvement project, and it cannot be deemed that the specific right to take occupancy rights, etc. of rental apartments under the relocation measures formulated by a project implementer is directly generated by the project implementer, and the project implementer shall take relocation measures.