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

A. Zone B, Zone B, Housing Site Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”) was approved on December 31, 2008 by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 5, 2012 after the revision of the development plan and approval of the implementation plan (Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs C), and the Defendant is the operator of the instant project.

B. On October 27, 2006, the base date, from among the persons who lose their base of living due to the provision of residential buildings due to the execution of the instant project, the Defendant established and implemented relocation measures for those who continued to own residential buildings within the instant project zone from before the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation.

C. On July 24, 2006, the Plaintiff, in collaboration with E and F, purchased a building of 189.21 square meters for the general steel framed branch and a single-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “the instant building”) on the H land located within the instant business zone from G on July 24, 2006 and used it for residential purposes.

The Plaintiff applied for the selection of the Defendant as a person subject to relocation measures on the ground that “the instant building was continuously used as a residential building.” However, on December 15, 2014, the Defendant issued a non-conformity notification to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the instant building, in which the Plaintiff resided, was arbitrarily changed the purpose of use of a building, which is not a residential purpose, into a residential living facility on the building ledger, without permission or reporting.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In the event that a building used for real residence is provided for public works regardless of the purpose in the Plaintiff’s alleged building register, it should be selected as a person subject to relocation measures, and the instant disposition that the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the person subject to relocation measures.