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 a project implementer of B Housing Redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) designated and publicly announced as a rearrangement zone on November 26, 2008 and authorized to implement the project on December 4, 2009 by the Sungnam market (hereinafter “instant project”).

The Plaintiff is the owner of the second floor No. 202, No. 202, No. 11,352 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”) among the second floor buildings (office) located within the improvement zone for the instant project.

B. On January 12, 2017, the Defendant publicly announced the application period for parcelling-out from January 12, 2017 to February 28, 2017, and the Plaintiff applied for multi-family housing to the Defendant within the said application period for parcelling-out.

As to the above application for parcelling-out, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the building of this case is excluded from the public housing unit buyers, on the ground that the building of this case does not fall under “housing (unauthorized buildings, which are actually used for residence)” as stipulated in the conditions of the project implementation agreement between the resident representatives’ meeting and the Defendant for the rearrangement project for B Housing Redevelopment (hereinafter “the conditions

C. On June 26, 2017, the Defendant established a management and disposal plan to exclude the Plaintiff from persons eligible for the sale of public housing and obtained authorization from the Sungnam City.

(hereinafter) Of the above management and disposition plan, the part excluding the plaintiff from the person subject to parcelling-out of public housing is referred to as "the disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, each entry in Gap's 2 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the grounds for disposition and relevant statutes.

As to this, the Plaintiff actually used the instant building for residential purposes at the time of expiration of the application period for parcelling-out ( February 28, 2017), which is the basic date of the management and disposition plan, as stipulated in the terms of the instant agreement.