이주자택지공급대상제외처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Acknowledgement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the following parts, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 4 of the first instance court's decision "Evidence 2, 3, 4, 6 through 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27 through 30, 33, 27 through 30, 33" shall be written by "Evidence 2, 3, 4, 6 through 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27 through 30, 33."
The 5th to 6th of the decision of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.
【C) The Plaintiff asserts that on December 23, 2002, the process of the moving-in report to Kim Jong-si, etc., the Plaintiff only transferred only the address on the resident registration to L’s domicile in order to receive insurance benefits as a female’s dependent, an employment provided policyholder for national health insurance, and actually resided in the instant house.
The plaintiff acquired the health insurance qualification as a local household owner from March 1, 1995, but around two years prior to his transfer to Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si. Since May 4, 200, the plaintiff acquired the health insurance qualification as a family member of his workplace of his workplace. The plaintiff thereafter acquired the health insurance qualification as a family member of his workplace every time his workplace moves to Kimpo-si. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on January 5, 2002, the second floor of Kimpo-si, where the resident registration place was moved to on January 5, 2002, as the multi-family house of 129.8 square meters for the plaintiff's living together with his new married father and wife, the size and structure of the house is deemed inappropriate. Meanwhile, on January 20, 2004, the moving-in report was made on January 20, 2004, the plaintiff's spouse of his apartment house was owned by JJ, and it was difficult to include the plaintiff's spouse's apartment house and his family member's non-owned.