The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where a part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Forms 4 through 14 of the decision of the first instance shall be taken in the following manner:

A person shall be appointed.

B. Whether an administrative disposition, which is subject to appeal litigation, is an act of an administrative agency’s public law and directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with respect to a specific matter, or giving rise to other legal effects. An act that does not directly affect the legal status of the other party or other related persons is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du10198, Nov. 15, 2007). In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding the whole purport of arguments to the whole purport of the arguments, the Defendant’s second notification cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, separate from the first notification.

① On February 28, 2017, when the Plaintiff applied for the selection of a person to be supplied with a multi-resident housing site to the Defendant, the term “matters of application” in the application for the establishment of relocation and living measures was contained in the “matters of application”. The Plaintiff stated the location of the instant housing in the owner’s column and stated the Plaintiff’s name in the owner’s column, and attached the Plaintiff’s resident registration

In light of the above contents and methods, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff asserted all necessary matters regarding the requirements for the person subject to relocation measures at the time of applying for the selection of the person subject to relocation measures.

② A written objection submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant around August 28, 2017 is the Plaintiff’s housing site.