1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is the executor of the E development project promoted at 11,885,000 square meters in Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan, C, and D Ilwon (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On January 11, 1978, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the Busan Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government F (Seoul Metropolitan Government G before the change of the administrative area) land (hereinafter “instant building”) located within the instant project zone. On March 24, 200, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the H on July 31, 200 after the said land was divided into F large 198 square meters and H large 66 square meters, and filed a move-in report with the H on December 24, 2009, again filed a move-in report with the H on April 20, 201, but filed a move-in report with the H on July 18, 201, again filed a move-in report with the H on April 20, 201.

On August 3, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building due to the sale on July 26, 2004, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the acquisition of the public land as of December 19, 2013.

C. The Defendant established the relocation measures following the implementation of the instant project, and publicly announced the compensation plan on July 12, 2012, which is the date of the resident inspection announcement for the relocation measures.

On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the selection of the Defendant as a person subject to the relocation measures for the instant project. However, on September 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to exclude the Plaintiff from the person subject to the relocation measures and notified the Plaintiff of the decision on the ground that the Plaintiff’s continuous residence requirements (including special residence) was not available before the base date.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on February 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is in this case from the base date of relocation measures.