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

A. On July 14, 2010, the Defendant is the implementer of the E business publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter “instant public works”) as C, the approval and public notification of the housing site development plan, and the conversion into D zone, as notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 17, 2010. On February 28, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a compensation contract with the Defendant for the instant housing on April 10, 2012, as the owner of the Namyang-si’s ground detached housing located within the instant public works zone (hereinafter “instant housing”).

Title: Guidance on the result of the review of the relocation measures of the E area( disqualified) E area as a result of the review, the thickness is not consistent with the criteria for the persons subject to relocation measures and is determined as disqualified and information on the following matters:

1. If an objection is raised as a result of the review of the measures for resettlement, the main time is to file an objection and explanatory materials in writing not later than 6 p.m. on September 2, 2016, and the result of the review at the time of an application for non-performance within that time limit is determined.

3. A revocation suit may be instituted within 90 days from the date on which he/she becomes aware of a disposition, etc. under Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act regarding the results of the review.

- A person subject to relocation measures - A person who has owned a legitimate house in the project district and has resided continuously in the project district (or the date of adjudication of expropriation) before the date of public inspection and publication of the residents (one year prior to the date of the conclusion of the compensation contract (one year prior to the date of the adjudication of expropriation) and has moved to the country after receiving compensation for the house due to the implementation of the project (excluding the owner of an unauthorized building, corporation or organization after January 25, 1

B. On July 28, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was disqualified because it failed to meet the criteria for persons subject to relocation measures as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is based on the grounds and reasons for the disposition.