1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 15, 2010, the outline of the project was changed to the “Yong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G and D” following the launch as of July 1, 2014 at the Cheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongbuk-si, Cheongbuk-do, by Article 7 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, as the project was announced 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 the designation of the E district (date of appraisal: October 15, 2010) to the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of expropriation, in principle, is supplied at a price of 70% at the development cost based on one parcel (165m2 to 265m2 per household) per household only for a person subject to relocation measures to supply housing sites for migrants.

C. The instant disposition No. 1) The Plaintiff is a single-story detached house on the ground of the FF on the ground of the Chungcheongbuk-gun. (hereinafter “instant housing”).

(2) On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff newly built a new house, reported the transfer of resident registration to the above house on February 24, 2006, and registered the preservation of ownership on April 5, 2006. (2) The Plaintiff applied for the selection of a person eligible for relocation measures, but the Defendant decided on February 11, 2015 that the Plaintiff was disqualified for relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not continue to reside in the instant house from the date of public announcement of the recognition of the project to the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, below.