1. On February 11, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of non-conformity is revoked as a result of the examination conducted against the Plaintiff.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 15, 2010, according to Article 7 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, the outline of the project is as follows: (a) the Cheongbuk-gun and D Petition-gun were integrated into the Cheongju-si and the Cheongju-si was changed into the address of the Cheongbuk-gu and Ha in the Cheongju-si, the Cheongju-si was launched on July 1, 2014.

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 designation of the E district (date of appraisal: October 15, 2010) to the date of conclusion of a contract or the date of expropriation, in principle, is supplied at a price of 70% at the development cost based on one parcel (165 square meters to 265 square meters) per household only for a person subject to relocation measures for the supply of a housing site for migrants.

C. On February 27, 2006, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant house”) was a house on the Fran-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s ground on February 27, 2006.

(2) On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff newly constructed a new registration of preservation of ownership, made a move-in report on the instant house on March 9, 2006, and transferred the instant house to the Defendant on February 21, 2013. (2) The Plaintiff applied for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures, but the Defendant decided on February 11, 2015 as to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not continue to reside in the instant house from the date the recognition of the instant project was announced to the date the contract was concluded or the expropriation was decided (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal.