1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 5, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the lightweight structure B above ground and other 97.44 square meters of detached housing in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant building”).

On July 21, 2009, the Minister of Knowledge Economy designated and publicly announced the defendant as the project implementer of H2-stage H2-stage development project to be implemented in Daejeon P, E, F, and G members, as announced by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy.

The instant building was included in the business area of the International Development Project, which is the above development project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Defendant acquired the instant building through consultation on October 13, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant building on October 20, 2015.

Around July 2016, the Defendant established a plan to move and live in the instant project. The date on which the criteria for selection of subjects of migration and living measures were designated and publicly announced as the project implementer on July 21, 2009 (hereinafter “base date of this case”), which is the date of designation and public notice of the said project implementer. The Defendant set the list of subjects of supply of migrants’s housing as “the portion of the portion of ownership of a house within the relevant project district from before the base date of this case to the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation, which is the portion of the portion of the said relocation to the project

On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of the Plaintiff as a person eligible for supply of re-settled housing sites. On February 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-disqualification disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not continue to reside from before the base date of the instant case until the date of concluding the compensation contract or the date of ruling of expropriation

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is the date of concluding the instant building compensation contract prior to the relevant base date, as to whether the instant disposition is legitimate, as to the following facts: Gap’s 2, 3, 5 through 8, and Eul’s 1 through 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).