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

A. The Defendant is the executor of the B public housing zone development project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiff is the owner of a valley (hereinafter “instant house”) among the Do Government-si Building C (Housing 38.98 square meters, Gyeyangs, 84.50 square meters, and vain between vain and 19.11 square meters) located within the instant project zone.

The owners of unauthorized buildings, corporations, and organizations are excluded from the owners of unauthorized buildings, corporations, and organizations, who owned and continuously resided in a permitted house within a project district from one year before the base date (the date of public announcement on the designation of a district, October 9, 2006) to the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication on expropriation, who received compensation for losses and emigrateed to the implementation of the project in this case.

B. The Defendant established and implemented the relocation measures pursuant to Article 78 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, and the criteria for selecting those eligible for the supply of the resettled housing site are as follows:

C. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a compensation contract with the Defendant for the instant house, etc., and thereafter requested the Plaintiff to select himself as a person subject to supply of the said housing site. However, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he did not meet the selection requirements prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations on October 27, 2016, and notified the Plaintiff that he was excluded from the selection of the eligible person (hereinafter “instant first disposition”), and ② a non-qualified disposition on the ground that he did not meet the ownership requirements and residency requirements on May 15, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 2”. 【Ground of Recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 1 and 2, the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case should be revoked on the grounds that all of the grounds delineated below are unlawful.

1) While taking the instant disposition No. 1, the Defendant violated Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to present specific grounds and reasons for the disposition. 2) The Plaintiff purchased the instant house on June 12, 1984.