The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the instant case is that the Plaintiff, who owned an unauthorized residential building located in the development project zone B executed by the Defendant, seeks revocation of the Defendant’s disposition to exclude the Plaintiff from those subject to relocation measures.

The first instance judgment accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful, since the Plaintiff continued to reside in the Plaintiff’s unauthorized building during the period in which the Plaintiff becomes the criteria for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures. The Defendant appealed against this.

[Attachment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes]

나. 전제된 사실관계 【증거】갑1, 2, 3, 4의 1, 을7과 변론 전체의 취지 ⑴ 당사자 ㈎ 원고는 피고가 시행한 B 택지개발조성사업에 들어가는 평택시 D 전 797㎡와 그 지상 무허가 주택(1983년 신축된 시멘트블록조 슬레이트지붕 1층, 이하 ‘D 주택’이라 한다.)을 2003. 7. 2. C으로부터 매수하여 2003. 7. 29. 그 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마치고 소유하던 사람이다.

㈏ 피고는 2008. 5. 30. 택지개발촉진법 8조에 기초한 사업계획을 인정받고 국토해양부로부터 개발계획이 승인(국토해양부 고시 E)된 평택시 F, G, H, I, J 일원의 B 택지개발조성사업을 시행한 사업시행자이다.

In order for the Defendant to be selected as the person subject to relocation measures while establishing relocation measures around March 2009 when implementing the Housing Site Development Project, the Defendant determined that the person who owned the house from one year before December 23, 2005 ( December 23, 2004) to the date of the public inspection of the residents of the Housing Site Development Project and resided in the house and who continued to reside in the house from one year before the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of the adjudication of expropriation, shall be included in the building constructed before January 24, 1989.

Consolidatedly, concerning the plaintiff's land.