1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si building B (hereinafter “instant building”) and the Defendant is the project implementer of the C Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The instant building was incorporated into the instant business area. On January 14, 2014, the Defendant concluded a compensation agreement with the Plaintiff for obstacles to the instant building, and paid compensation to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff applied for the selection of a person subject to the relocation measures to the Defendant, but the Defendant notified on April 29, 2015 that the Plaintiff was excluded from the person subject to the relocation measures.

(hereinafter “the first notification”) D.

Accordingly, on May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant, and on July 10, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the examination of the objection that he/she was found disqualified as a result of the examination of the objection against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant notification of objection”).

E. On September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a trial seeking revocation of the notification of the instant objection, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on December 15, 2015.

F. On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the initial notification of this case by Suwon District Court 2016Guhap62130. On December 13, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on the ground that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the Defendant for the first notification of this case, even around May 28, 2015, the period for filing the lawsuit was 90 days, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

G. On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant regarding the selection of a person subject to relocation measures due to the instant project, but the Defendant, on January 20, 2017, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the previous examination as of April 29, 2015, and the case was terminated after the administrative appeal and administrative litigation.