1. The plaintiff's primary claim among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is the project implementer of the housing site development project in the zone B (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si C ground buildings located within the instant project district (hereinafter “instant building”). On June 1, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, consultation on compensation for obstacles to the instant building was concluded.

B. In accordance with Article 78(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) and Article 40(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26867, Jan. 6, 2016), the Defendant provided guidance for the implementation of the relocation measures and living measures related to the instant project, and among them, the main contents of the relocation measures regarding the supply of housing sites for migrants are as follows:

The period of application: The portion of a house continuously owned from July 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014 by the date of public announcement for public inspection of residents subject to supply of a multi-unit housing site (self-unit housing site) until the date of conclusion of a compensation agreement (or the date of adjudication for expropriation on December 23, 2005), and the owner of an unauthorized building, corporation, or organization that moves to a house due to the execution of the project after receiving compensation for the house from the project operator, shall be excluded;

C. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the supply of the resettled housing site (Evidence No. 2; hereinafter “first application”), but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the examination of the person subject to relocation measures on April 29, 2015, that the Plaintiff became disqualified. The Plaintiff submitted a written notice of notification to the Plaintiff by May 29, 2015, stating that “if an objection is raised as a result of the examination, a written objection and additional supporting materials, etc. are filed, and the results of the examination will be confirmed at the time of the application for non-application within the same period, and the Plaintiff will be informed of the confirmation of the results of the examination.

In addition, an administrative appeal is made within 90 days from the date of receipt of the relevant notice in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Act or the Administrative Litigation Act.