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

A. The Defendant is the executor of the I Industrial Complex Plan, approved and publicly notified on September 30, 2009, with the size of 4,081,46 square meters as the business area in Gwangju Mine-gu Cdong, Ddong, Edong, and Hagu-dong, Jeonnam-si, Fri, Gri, Hriwon, and Hriwon, as B announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

B. On March 29, 2017, the Defendant directed the relocation measures formulated pursuant to Article 78 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) and Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with respect to the implementation of the said project, and the requirements for those subject to the said relocation site are as follows:

A person who has continuously owned and resided in a project district continuously from before the date of public inspection and announcement of an industrial complex to be supplied with the housing site (the date of September 30, 2009) until the date of conclusion of an indemnity agreement or the date of adjudication of expropriation, and who has received compensation for the said housing from the defendant and emigrateed due to the implementation of this project after January 25, 1989, shall be excluded from the owner of a building without permission and a corporation or organization (a clan

C. On July 26, 2018, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the building located in the J of Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) in the pertinent business zone by inheritance, filed an application for the supply of the housing site for migrants with the Defendant, and on the ground that “the building ledger of the instant building is confirmed as an unauthorized house constructed after January 25, 1989 as a result of the verification of the building ledger of the instant building” from the Defendant, the Plaintiff was subject to non-disposition of the person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on April 2, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful since the building which was originally living around 1996 was collapsed and it was inevitable to reconstruct and continuously reside in the instant building.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Whether the disposition is lawful.

A. According to Article 78(1) of the Land Compensation Act.