2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Mayor of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved and publicly announced the designation and development plan of the Eunpyeong New Town Urban Development Zone and the development plan (hereinafter “instant project”) with the content of the Defendant as the project area among the land located in the Jinna-dong in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the 3,495,248 square meters from among the land located in the Jinna-dong and the Gu wavedong-dong, and the Defendant as the project implementer (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On the other hand, on November 20, 2002, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the defendant made a public announcement on November 20, 2002 on the base date of the relocation measures for the Gangnam New Town development project including the Eunpyeong New Town as the Seoul Special Metropolitan City public announcement No. 2002-130, Nov. 20, 2002. After which, on October 19, 2004, the defendant made a public announcement on the "the relocation measures for the residents who have lost their living base, etc." as the residential and living measures for the residents who have lost their living base as a result of the implementation of the project in this case, and among them, the living measures for the flowerers who have lost their business base (hereinafter the "measures in this case") are as follows:

1. Relocation measures;

【Living Measures】

(1) A business operator who has completed permission, registration, report, or business registration under related Acts and subordinate statutes within the business area from the base date to the date of conclusion of the contract, and voluntarily emigrateed to a person who has been registered as a rental business operator under related Acts and subordinate statutes in the business area from the base date to the date of conclusion of the contract, or a person who has been registered as a rental business operator under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the business area from before the base date to the date of conclusion of the contract for consultation and voluntarily relocated to a person who has consulted on and voluntarily relocated to the former by the date of conclusion of the contract for consultation shall be provided with shares of not more than 16.5m2 of the sales price or commercial site (quasi-residential site) in accordance with paragraph (2).

2. Special supply of land to lay the foundation for residents' livelihood;

(1) In the case of shortage of supply of flowers land, a business operator who owns a building and has completed business registration and has continued to conduct business registration under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the business area for more than three months prior to the base date, and has voluntarily relocated after consultation with the compensation for business loss, shall be supplied with a share of not more than 82m2m2 in the business area. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2034, Feb. 1, 2007>

C. On June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff registered the business with the head of Seodaemun-gu Tax Office’s trade name as the “Pacific Agriculture Center,” and the location of the location as the “Seoul Eunpyeong-gu Jinna-dong 425-1” and registered the business with the content that he operates the inficial wholesale business.

D. On August 24, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the relocation and removal of obstacles, etc., including the removal and removal of the facilities, by setting the compensation amount of KRW 60,015,000, while moving the facilities of the Pacific Agricultural Institute on its own around that time.

E. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for living measures related to the instant business, and on June 7, 2007, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she was selected as the first third-order eligible person among those eligible to be supplied with less than 16.5 square meters of the commercial site in accordance with the instant countermeasures (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 15-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On February 5, 199, the Plaintiff: (a) registered the business under the name of Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court); (b) registered the business under the name of Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court); (c) registered the business under the name of Nonparty 1 in order to change the name of its own name; (d) reported the closure of the business under the name of Nonparty 1 on June 30, 2003; and (e) continued to operate the business under the name of Nonparty 1 in the name of its own name; and (e) thereafter, registered the business under the name of the “Pacific Agriculture; and (e) subsequently, registered the business under the name of its own name; and (e) subsequently, (e) transferred the facilities of the “Pacific Agriculture,” following the agreement with the Defendant on compensation, the Plaintiff’s disposal was unlawful since it continued to operate the business under the name of another person for three months prior to the base date and continued to operate the business under the name of its own name; and (e) thus, (g) the Plaintiff did not constitute the Plaintiff 2).

(2) Even if it is deemed that the “business registration” requirement under the criteria for selection of the recipients of flower land in the instant measure refers to only the business registration under the name of the relevant flower business operator, the instant measure taken on the ground that the Plaintiff did not fall under the business operator who registered the business in his/her name for more than three months prior to the base date and continued to operate the business, is treated differently without reasonable grounds, and thus, is in violation of the principle of equality under the Constitution, and thus, it is unlawful as it is in violation of the principle of fair compensation.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On May 20, 1993, the Plaintiff registered the business of using the trade name in the name of Nonparty 2, who is the wife, as “original farmer,” and the location of the location as “Seoul Seongdong-dong 425-5,” and reported the closure of the business on August 31, 1998, when Nonparty 3 operated the flower wholesale business by using the “Central Plant Center,” located in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Jin-dong located in Jin-dong, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul (referring to the flower wholesale complex that was installed and developed by installing the plastic greenhouse facilities for cultivating and selling flowers on approximately 5,000 on the land leased from Nonparty 3 in his own land and from others).

(2) After that, the Plaintiff: (a) registered the business of Nonparty 3 with the title of Nonparty 1, who borrowed the lease deposit amount of KRW 2 million, monthly rent of KRW 130,000; (b) reported and paid taxes to Nonparty 1 in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”), while carrying on the French wholesale business in the above leased facility; and (c) reported and paid taxes in the name of Nonparty 1 in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3 prepared between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3, as well as the Plaintiff, for the convenience of Nonparty 3’s lease agreement; (b) the Plaintiff was registered as the address in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the actual location of the instant leased facility, and (c) the Plaintiff was registered as the address in the same way as the Plaintiff was registered as the “Seoul Special Metropolitan City,” and (d) the Plaintiff was registered as the address in the same way as the name of the Plaintiff within 425-day.

(3) While continuing to engage in French wholesale business, the Plaintiff intended to change the name of the instant chemical operator in its name as a result of the cancellation of the registration of the bad credit holder. However, on June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff reported the change of the name of the instant chemical operator, which was registered under Nonparty 1’s name, and filed a new report on the closure of business as to the “Pacific Agricultural Center,” which was registered under the name of Nonparty 1, as well as continued to engage in French wholesale business in the instant chemical operator as the same name as the trade name of the instant chemical operator. However, while the Plaintiff renewed the lease agreement with Nonparty 3, the Plaintiff entered the name of the instant chemical operator into the lease agreement with Nonparty 3 with the neighboring “Gjin-dong-dong 425-1”, which was not the actual land lot number, and the Plaintiff continued to change the name of the business operator in the name of Eunpyeong-dong 425-1, the location of the Plaintiff’s new business operator in the name of Eunpyeong-dong 1, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] The statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 14 (including a branch number for those with a branch number), the testimony of non-party 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In the measure of this case, the criteria for selection of those who want to be supplied with land for cremation (hereinafter “the criteria for selection of those who want to be supplied with land for cremation”) are required to be “non-party 2 who had been permitted, registered, reported, and registered in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes from 3 months before the base date, and who had failed to meet the requirements for the business registration among the criteria for selection of those who had been selected, voluntarily relocated after consultation with the compensation for business losses.” The purport of the measure of this case is to set the requirement to be “non-party 2 who had been registered in the name of the above 3 months before the base date for the above 3 months before the base date for the removal of the land for business,” and that the measure of this case is to be taken differently with the business operator who wanted to pay taxes in good faith, and to change the name of the above 3 months before the base date for the removal of the land for this case by establishing the objective criteria for relocation of those who had been employed in the name of the above 2 months before the base date for the removal.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.

Judge Han-sung (Presiding Judge)