1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of the 111.36 square meters of a stable with a single floor in Pyeongtaek-si B mentblub roof in the luxa luxa.

The above building is located in the project district of the Housing Site Development Project in the C Zone implemented by the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "instant project") and its ownership has been transferred to the defendant due to the acquisition of public land through consultation.

B. On July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to select the Plaintiff as a person subject to relocation measures.

On January 12, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was disqualified for the relocation measures (hereinafter referred to as the “instant non-conformity”), and the written notification stated that “If an objection is raised as a result of the review of the relocation measures, the Defendant submitted a written statement of objection, additional documents, etc. by March 20, 2015, and submitted the written statement of objection, additional documents, etc. by March 20, 2015, and that the results of the examination at the time of non-application within the same period will be known to have become final and conclusive.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant guidance”). C.

Accordingly, on March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the “qualified person for relocation measures” with the Defendant (hereinafter “the first objection”). On May 14, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on May 14, 2015, that the Plaintiff became final and conclusive as disqualified person for relocation measures because the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for supply of housing sites to be continuously owned and resided in the said housing from one year prior to the date of the public announcement of the resident’s perusal until the date of the conclusion of the compensation contract (hereinafter “the first notification”).

On January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant against “non-compliant disposition of the resettled housing site” (hereinafter “the second objection”). On February 11, 2016, the Defendant notified the Defendant that he/she cannot be selected as a person subject to relocation measures because he/she failed to meet the requirements for a person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “the second notification”) (hereinafter “the first notification”), and the first and second notification collectively referred to as “each notification of this case”). The Plaintiff did not have any dispute.