1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

(b)a person who has been engaged in the facility with a box of not less than 50 m3 m3 of a fixed m3m2 and has entered into an agreement and voluntarily relocated agreement shall be entitled to a share of not more than 16.5m2 of the land for sale in the area or for livelihood countermeasures.

Provided, That the share supply of land for livelihood countermeasures shall be limited to the case determined on the land use plan in the relevant district, and where the quantity to be supplied is insufficient, it shall be supplied in accordance with the following order of priority, but it shall be supplied in accordance with the computer lottery

Priority - First: Livestock raisers on land owned by him/her - Second: Livestock raisers on land owned by others;

C. On July 22, 2010, the Defendant investigated goods owned by the Plaintiff in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, which are located within the instant project zone, and prepared a basic survey report on goods with the following contents:

The types of goods and the quantity of materials in a lot 1 V.H1 (Iron/ V. V.02.7*2.2.2 18.9 square meters and 2V.H2 (Iron/ V.2) 7.0*2.72.2.9 square meters and 12.0*2.9 square meters in a 12.0*6.4 square meters and 70 square meters in a 12.09.74 square meters in a 12.09.7.4 square meters in a 16.4 square meter.

D. On January 26, 2011, the Defendant entered into a “contract for the transfer and removal of the buried goods, etc.” with the Plaintiff on each of the goods indicated in the table in the said paragraph (c), and paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,229,200 in total of compensation based on the said contract.

E. On January 26, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for livelihood measures (compensation for livestock industry loss) on the ground that the Plaintiff owned 70 scams within the instant business area and carried on the two-wing business.

On July 3, 2013, the Defendant issued a non-conformity notification (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the review criteria, and the said notification was sent by registered mail around July 5, 2013, and reached the Plaintiff around that time.

F. On January 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition is null and void, and filed an administrative appeal. However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 21, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition]