1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant is the operator of the housing site development project (D publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs; hereinafter referred to as the "project of this case") with a project area of 1,174,600 square meters in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B.

The Plaintiff is a co-owner of the Goyang-gu E-ground housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) incorporated into the instant business area.

Around October 2008, the Defendant established and publicly announced the relocation measures for the instant project, and determined the requirements for those subject to the supply of the housing site for migrants as “a person who has continuously owned and resided in the instant housing continuously from one year before the date of public inspection and public announcement of the designation of the planned housing site development area ( July 29, 2005) to the date of conclusion of the indemnity agreement or the date of adjudication of expropriation, and who has received compensation for the said housing from the Defendant and emigrateed due to the execution of the instant project (excluding a corporation or organization and an unauthorized building owner constructed after January 25, 198

On March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the exclusion of the person subject to relocation measures.

(hereinafter “Notice of March 27, 2015”). On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted an application again to the Defendant for the selection of the Defendant as a person subject to relocation measures through the subordinate law firm, an applicant agent.

On June 12, 2018, the defendant sent a reply to the effect that the plaintiff is not a person subject to relocation measures.

hereinafter referred to as "the reply of this case"

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings and records Nos. 1, 3, 5, and Nos. 1 through 4 had no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Defendant publicly announced a compensation plan for the instant project on Sept. 4, 2009. The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant housing on Oct. 19, 2005 and continuously resided therein, thereby constituting a person subject to relocation measures in accordance with the established rules on the establishment and implementation of relocation measures that the Plaintiff had been in force at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s response to the instant case was made by the Plaintiff.