1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) as the implementer of the Ewaterfront development project, promoted in the area of 11,885,000 square meters in Busan Gangseo-gu, C, and D Ilwon (hereinafter “instant project”); (b) implemented a public announcement of the residents’ perusal and presentation for the designation of the E Waterfront on July 12, 2012 (the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City public announcementF); and (c) on December 14, 2012, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs designated the instant project area as the E Waterfront (Ministry G).

B. On May 6, 1981, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of H large 393 square meters and above-ground buildings in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City located in the instant business area, and removed the said building and newly built the housing (hereinafter “instant building”) on December 2, 2009, and obtained approval for use on the same month.

7. The registration of initial ownership has been completed.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report on the instant building on February 25, 2009.

C. The instant building is divided into the right detached house (9m2) and the left-hand neighborhood living facilities (9m2). On July 2, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the right-hand detached house among the instant building to I on July 2, 2010 from August 10 to August 9, 2012. On November 26, 2010, J established a right-hand neighborhood living facilities among the instant building with a term of contract from December 1, 2010 to November 30, 2012.

On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the ground of acceptance on November 18, 2014.

E. The Defendant, by establishing relocation measures due to the implementation of the instant project, publicly announced a compensation plan on July 12, 2012, which is the date on which the base date for relocation measures was announced for public inspection by residents.

F. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the appointment 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 reason that “the recognition of the continuous residence before the base date is not possible.”

b.0.0 c.