1. The Defendant’s KRW 971,050 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 22, 2016 to October 19, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 8, 2008, the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Seomun-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement zone”) made public inspection and announcement of the designation of the rearrangement zone as a zone B housing redevelopment zone as a zone for B housing redevelopment as announced D on April 8, 2008.

After December 24, 2009, the Defendant approved the establishment of the association on December 24, 2009, implemented the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Project”) in the instant rearrangement zone.

The defendant obtained project implementation authorization on November 1, 2012, and obtained project implementation authorization on August 8, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff’s residential situation is a Korean national residing in Japan, and filed a report on the transfer of ownership on May 16, 2003 with respect to 2 households with 142 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 66.62 square meters in a house for multi-household household (5 households), 66.62 square meters in a 2nd floor, 1 household with 66.62 square meters in a 2nd floor, 2 household with 66.62 square meters in a 2nd floor, 2 household with a 66.62 square meters in a 3nd floor, and 9.28 square meters in a rooftop (hereinafter “the instant multi-family house”). On April 18, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a report on the domestic domicile with this address.

C. The plaintiff to expropriate the multi-family house of this case became an object of cash settlement because he did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out notified by the defendant

Plaintiff

On May 27, 2016, the expropriation ruling was made on the land owned and the multi-family housing in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff owned and resided in the instant multi-household housing, which is a residential building in the instant rearrangement zone, before the date of public inspection and announcement of the public inspection of the relevant rearrangement zone, and the Plaintiff came to move to the implementation of the instant

The defendant's moving settlement money to the plaintiff 12,00,000 won (where the amount equivalent to 30% of the appraised value of a residential building subject to compensation exceeds 12,00,000 won), relocation expenses 3,662,762 won, which belongs to the date of adjudication on expropriation of the residential building subject to compensation, 3/4th quarter of 2016.