이주대책대상자제외처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Defendant is a concessionaire of the housing site development project (hereinafter “instant project”).
The Plaintiff’s mother, the Plaintiff’s mother, completed the registration of ownership preservation on April 3, 2008 with respect to the 22.08 square meters and 22.09 square meters and 22.09 square meters and 1st floor on the ground of a wooden tank, ice 400 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 3/10 of the instant housing on the ground of donation made on the same day to the Plaintiff.
A person who has continuously owned a house and has continuously resided in the house before one year prior to the date of public inspection and public announcement of the designation of a prearranged housing site development district ( July 29, 2005) by the date of concluding a compensation contract (or the date of adjudication of expropriation), and who emigrates due to the execution of the project after receiving compensation from the defendant.
B. On July 29, 2005, the Defendant: (a) made a public announcement of the designation of a prearranged housing site development zone in relation to the instant project; (b) around October 2008, pursuant to Article 78 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) and Article 40 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26867, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same), the Defendant established relocation measures following the implementation of the instant project; and (c) the criteria for the selection of a person eligible for the supply of housing sites among them
C. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the supply of the instant housing site for migrants to the purport that “the Plaintiff owned shares in the instant land and the instant housing by inheritance from the 1982 note, and did not share the same livelihood with those who resided in another residence in the instant housing site.”
On August 28, 2015, the defendant selected B as a person eligible for supply of the instant housing site to the plaintiff on August 28, 2015.