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”) for which the designation of a rearrangement zone was publicly announced on November 26, 2008 and the authorization for project implementation was granted from the Sungnam market on December 4, 2009.

The Plaintiff is the owner of “18.57 square meters of the 1st floor of the 3rd floor of the 101st floor of the 1st floor of the 2nd apartment living facilities (office) in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) located in 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 14, 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 persons eligible for the sale of public housing is referred to as “the instant disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and

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.

The plaintiff actually received the application for parcelling-out from February 28, 2017, unlike the announcement of the application for parcelling-out of the project in this case. The building in this case was actually used for residential purposes at the time of the expiration of the above application period, which is the basic date of the management and disposition plan, and thus, the plaintiff.