이주대책대상자제외처분취소
The appeal is dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
On November 11, 2016, the lower court: (a) notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff was excluded from the person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “the first notification”); (b) on the Plaintiff’s objection, the lower court again notified the Defendant that the instant house was donated from the previous owner on March 10, 2017 to the effect that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for ownership (hereinafter “the second notification”).
The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s filing of an objection is more likely to be regarded as an application for the selection of a person subject to separate measures for relocation than the filing of an appeal against the first notification, which is the previous rejection disposition, and thus, the second notification is subject to revocation as a new rejection disposition independent, but the Plaintiff was aware of the second notification as of April 7, 2017, which is the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit, at the latest.
Even if 90 days have elapsed from September 1, 2017, the first notification was sought to revoke the second notification, and the second notification was failed to comply with the period of filing a lawsuit by filing an application for the exchange change of the lawsuit.
In addition, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s assertion was groundless on the grounds that the Plaintiff acquired the instant house on the ground of donation, and that the Defendant’s “Guidelines for the Establishment of Countermeasures against Relocation and Living Conditions” stipulates that the Plaintiff shall be selected as a person subject to relocation measures in the case of acquiring a house based on the “inward” after the base date, and that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s donation, which is the cause of acquisition, is substantially identical
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the period of filing a lawsuit lapsed, and the legal principles as to whether the second notification was unlawful.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party.