1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned a 100 square meters and 76 square meters of land on Pyeongtaek-si B large-scale 88 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and on its ground (hereinafter “instant land”).

Since then, on February 9, 2010, C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one-third portion of the instant land due to the refund of legal reserve of inheritance on February 9, 2010, the Plaintiff was only 12/13 of the instant land from around that time.

B. The instant land and housing were located within the project area of the zone D, which is the housing site development project executed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant project zone”), and the Defendant, on December 23, 2005, announced for public inspection of the district designation on September 24, 2010, on the share of 12/13 of the instant land, on April 24, 2013, on the share of 1/13 of the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 21, 2012 on the instant housing due to each consultation.

C. Around May 2014, the Defendant established measures for resettlement, including that “A person who has continuously owned a house and has continuously resided in the house before the date of concluding a compensation contract (or the date of the adjudication on expropriation) for public inspection for residents of the district from before one year to the date of the announcement for public inspection for the resident of the district (see December 23, 2005)” and “a person who has continued to reside in the house after receiving compensation for the house from the Defendant and who has resided in the house due to the implementation of the project, shall be supplied with the reresident’s housing site (the re-resident’s housing site).”

On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to the effect that he/she was selected as a person subject to relocation measures, but on April 29, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she was excluded from the subject because he/she failed to meet the requirements for selection of a person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the Plaintiff filed an objection on May 27, 2015, but the Defendant filed an objection with the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015.