이주자택지공급대상자제외처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article
2. Additional determination
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff asserted the specific contents of the requirements for the relocation measures only at the time of the instant request, and that the Defendant did not give notice of the reasons for being disqualified for the relocation measures or of the administrative litigation and administrative appeal procedures when giving notice of non-conformity on February 6, 2017, the instant notice constitutes a new rejection disposition against a new application, and thus constitutes a disposition subject to appeal.
B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant notification is merely a notification that maintains the disqualified notification as of February 6, 2017, which was the previous disposition, and cannot be deemed a new rejection disposition against a new application, which is subject to appeal litigation.
1. On November 28, 2016, when the Plaintiff applied for the supply of the resettled housing site to the Defendant, the Plaintiff contained the items of “resettled housing site,” “a family site,” “a family site,” and “a housing site subject to consultation” in the application form, and specifically stated the date of acquisition and the date of commencement of residence of the instant building.
In addition, on March 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the non-conformity notification with the Defendant on February 6, 2017, and explained the acquisition of the house and the circumstances of the residence, and submitted the evidentiary materials, such as the residence-related photograph, to the Defendant.
In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff asserted the specific contents of the requirements for the person subject to relocation measures from the time of filing an application for the supply of the unsettled housing site as of November 28, 2016 and the objection as of March 9, 2017. The instant request is its form, content, and content.