1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic facts are the project implementer of the Namyang-si B Bogeumjari Housing Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiff is the owner at the time of accepting the instant project, which was expropriated on June 24, 2013, C large scale 175 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant housing”).

Title: Guidance on the following matters shall be made as disqualified as a result of the examination of relocation measures for the public housing zone B in Namyang-ju as a result of the examination of relocation measures for the public housing zone B in Namyang-ju as a result of the examination of relocation measures for the public housing zone:

1. If an objection is raised as a result of the review of the measures for resettlement, the main time is to file an objection and explanatory materials in writing not later than 6 p.m. on September 2, 2016, and the result of the review at the time of an application for non-performance within that time limit is determined.

3. A revocation suit may be instituted within 90 days from the date on which he/she becomes aware of a disposition, etc. under Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act regarding the results of the review.

- A person subject to relocation measures - Before the date of public inspection of the residents (on January 19, 2006, before one year prior to the date of concluding a compensation contract (or the date of adjudication of expropriation) and who has continued to own a house within the relevant project district and has received compensation for the house due to the implementation of the project (excluding the owner of an unauthorized building and a corporation or organization after January 25, 1989), the Plaintiff filed an application for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures for the said project with the Defendant. On July 28, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to exclude the person subject to relocation measures (a certificate No. 2; hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the following grounds to the Plaintiff:

【In the absence of dispute on the grounds of recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant did not present the grounds and grounds for the disposition to the plaintiff in the instant disposition. Thus, the above disposition is unlawful as it violates Article 23(1) of the Administrative

The plaintiff on April 1981.