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 October 13, 2005, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, B, C, one thousand one hundred and seventy-eight thousand square meters as a planned housing site development area (hereinafter “instant public inspection announcement”); on June 26, 2006, the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated and publicly announced the said area as a planned housing site development area (E public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation); on September 19, 2008, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs approved and publicly notified the designation and alteration of the planned housing site development area (the area is changed to 1,178,37 square meters) and the housing site development plan.

(F) of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

The plaintiff is the owner of the Goyang-gu G site and the ground house located within the above business zone (hereinafter referred to as the "instant house"), and the defendant is the operator of the above business.

C. The Plaintiff, upon receiving compensation for losses from the Defendant for the instant housing, applied for the appointment of himself as a relocation agent, but the Defendant respondeded that he did not fall under the person subject to relocation measures on July 27, 2016, stating the reasons therefor as follows: “The Plaintiff’s mother was unable to vindicate the fact that he/she continued to reside within the period of residence.”

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap’s Nos. 1, 9, 10, and Eul’s Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that, prior to the date of the public inspection of the instant case, the Plaintiff resided with the mother in the instant housing, and was inevitably created an additional residence due to the educational problem of his child around 1999. Even thereafter, her mother and friendly son continued to reside in the instant housing. The Plaintiff also continued to reside in the instant housing, such as where her mother look at the instant housing and directly pays electric charges, etc. for the instant housing, and thus, constitutes a person subject to relocation measures.

Even if it is not, public activities are done.