1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 30, 2008, the Defendant is the executor of the housing site development project in the F District announced G publicly by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter “instant project”). The Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si B miscellaneous land and its land unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the instant project district.

B. In order to implement the project of this case, the Defendant established and implemented the relocation measures (hereinafter “instant relocation measures”) while acquiring through consultation or accepting a lot of land such as Pyeongtaek-si E-Myeon and residential buildings. The criteria for the selection of the beneficiaries of the housing site for migrants are as follows.

1) A person to be supplied with a housing site for migrants: A house which has been continuously owned from one year before the date of public inspection and announcement of the residents of the F Area (hereinafter December 23, 2005) to the date of concluding a compensation contract (or the date of adjudication of expropriation) and has been continuously resided in the house, and a project operator (the defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”).

(2) The owner of a building without permission, a corporation, or an organization that received compensation for the said house from the Defendant and moves to another household due to the implementation of the project (other than the owner of a building without permission, a corporation, or an organization) is entitled to special supply of the house: Before the F Area residents’ public notice date (which December 23, 2005) was made available to the public and continuously resided in the house by the date of the conclusion of the compensation contract (or the date of adjudication of expropriation). The owner of a building without permission, a corporation, or

C. On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application to select himself as a person subject to the relocation measures of this case, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff as a disqualified person on the ground that the instant building was not a legitimate residential building (use of electricity for agriculture for residential purposes).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). . [Ground for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. This.