2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On November 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application with the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City for development activities to create a new warehouse site for farming households (land form and quality alteration) with the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu. On December 18, 2002, the construction report was accepted from the head of the branch office of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which newly constructs 49 square meters of storage facilities (for farming households) on the land and received a certificate of the construction report.

At that time, the Plaintiff newly constructed a panel structure building on the above land (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On October 27, 2006, the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City announced the public inspection according to the proposal for the designation of a zone to be designated as a zone to be designated as a zone to be developed, and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on February 6, 2009 the designation of a zone to be developed and the development plan of the zone to be developed and approved by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

C. The Defendant, as the project executor of the instant project, established the relocation measures of the instant project pursuant to Article 78 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor and Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Around December 2016, the period of application for relocation measures was determined and announced from January 2, 2017 to April 28, 2017. Of the relocation measures, the requirements for a person subject to the supply of a multi-resident housing site (multi-unit housing site) among the relocation measures were determined as “a person who has continuously owned and continuously resided in a house within a project district from January 27, 2006) to be subject to the date of the public inspection of the designation of the housing site subject to the housing development plan or the date of the adjudication of expropriation.”

The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person to be supplied with a housing site for migrants within the period of application for relocation measures, and the Defendant was excluded from the Plaintiff on July 28, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for a person to be supplied with a housing site for migrants.