이주자택지공급대상자제외처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 9, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on August 4, 2004, with respect to the building Nos. 101, 401, Dong-gu and 4 lots of land (hereinafter “instant building”). On November 2, 2005, the resident public inspection announcement was made to designate a site of the instant building as a planned housing site development area (hereinafter “base date”) to designate a daily source including the site of the instant building as a planned housing site development area. After that, the Korea National Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land Corporation”) was merged with the Defendant on October 1, 2009, and the Defendant was designated as the implementer of the said housing site development project without distinguishing the rights and obligations of Korea National Housing Corporation before and after the merger.
B. Around April 2016, the Defendant gave guidance on the implementation of countermeasures for resettlement and living related to the housing site development project, and the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person to be supplied with the housing site for migrants on the premise that he/she is the owner and resident of the instant building. On July 20, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to exclude the Plaintiff from the person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance with the purport that “it was unfair to select the Plaintiff as a person subject to relocation measures because the move-in report was made on the ground that it was made after the base date.” On November 7, 2016, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission sent reply to the purport that it is difficult to deem the instant disposition to be unfair to the Plaintiff.
After receiving the reply of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but the Defendant had before the base date on December 2, 2016.