이주대책대상자제외처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. B Industrial complex development project (hereinafter “instant project”) is being implemented on September 30, 2009 by the public notice of the designation of the said district and the approval of the implementation plan (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs C), and the Defendant is the operator of the instant project.
B. The Defendant, among the persons who are deprived of their base of living following the provision of residential buildings due to the implementation of the instant project, has established and implemented relocation measures to ensure that the instant project continues to own residential buildings within the instant project zone from September 30, 2009 to the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation, and supply the housing site for migrants to the persons who have continued to reside in the building.
C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of himself/herself as a person subject to relocation measures on the premise that he/she is the owner of a house on the ground of 1,252 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant land”), located within the instant business zone. However, on October 22, 2013, the Defendant issued a non-resident notification to the Plaintiff on the ground that the said house was an unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 6, Eul's No. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had obtained a construction permit in 1995, and newly built a stable, manager, warehouse, and compost on the instant land, and resided in Daegu-gun E, Daegu-gu, while filing a lawsuit. As the Plaintiff’s business failure was sold out by auction, the Plaintiff resided on the instant land from around 2006.
Since the above house has a perfect shape as a residential building, and the plaintiff actually resided from around 2006 to around March 2014, the defendant's disposition of this case under the premise that the above house is an unauthorized building is illegal.
(b) Appendix 1 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is as shown.