2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is the project implementer of the B Housing Site District Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiff newly constructed and owned the two-story housing unit on the land at the time of harmony (hereinafter “instant housing”) around February 2002.

B. On December 31, 2005, on the designation of the project district of this case as the project district of this case, the Gisung City, Eiri, and Firiwon, including the site for the housing of this case, was made a public inspection and announcement for the hearing of residents' opinions, and thereafter the defendant made a public inspection and announcement on July 31, 2009.

A person subject to supply of multi-resident housing site (single housing site): A person who has owned a residential building for which approval for use under Article 22 of the Building Act has been obtained in the relevant project district from before the base date ( December 31, 2005) to the first compensation commencement date ( December 28, 2009) and has continuously resided in the building from one year before the base date ( December 30, 2004) to the first compensation commencement date ( December 28, 2009), and who has been removed from the building in accordance with the relevant project;

C. Around July 2016, the Defendant directed the implementation of the relocation measures, etc. including the following matters.

On August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the supply of the said housing site on the premise that the Plaintiff is a person subject to relocation measures, and the Defendant, on March 22, 2017, notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff is excluded from the person subject to supply of the said housing site on the ground that the Plaintiff did not continue to reside in the instant housing from December 30, 204, which was one year before the date of the public announcement of the public announcement of the instant project district, on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a person subject to supply of the said housing site, (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on September 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion.