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

A. On October 15, 2010, the outline of the project was changed to H and I as the Si of Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongbuk-do was launched as of July 1, 2014 in accordance with Article 7 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act through B through the notification of Chungcheongbuk-do.

The original land was designated as E and announced as E, and the main contents thereof are as follows:

(i) Project name: E development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”);

(2) Location: 3,31,701 square meters in size: The president of the Chungcheong Development Corporation from 2007 to 5, 2015; the project operator of the project area of 3,331,701 square meters in size:

(b) A plan for the establishment of relocation measures and the public announcement of a plan for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures on July 2014: A building owner who has been residing in a residential building continuously from the date of public announcement of designation of the E district (date of appraisal: October 15, 2010) to the date of conclusion of a contract or the date of expropriation, in principle, is supplied at a price of 70% at the development cost based on one parcel (165 square meters to 265 square meters) per household only for a person subject to relocation measures for the supply of a housing site for migrants.

C. On January 23, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) owned by the Plaintiff’s fatherF on January 23, 2008, G-gu 370 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”); and (b) owned by the Plaintiff’s fatherF.

) The housing and its ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”)

(2) On January 29, 2008, upon the Plaintiff’s donation, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said site and housing on January 29, 2008, the Defendant agreed to acquire the instant site and housing on February 25, 2013, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s fatherF died on November 30, 2013. 2) The Plaintiff applied for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures to the Defendant, but on February 11, 2015, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff was disqualified for relocation measures on the ground that the Plaintiff did not continue to reside in the instant housing from the date of the public announcement of recognition of the instant project to the date of the conclusion of the contract or