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, as the executor of the B public housing zone development project in March 2017, implemented measures for living for those who lose their base of living due to the implementation of the said project. In the case of those who received agricultural compensation in excess of a certain scale among eligible persons, the Defendant, on the condition that “a person who received compensation for farming loss, who owned or leased farmland in the project district (farmland falling under subparagraph 1 (a) of Article 2 of the Farmland Act) from before the base date ( December 31, 2005) to the commencement date of the first compensation ( December 28, 2009), is the one who owned or leased and cultivated (one million square meters for land cultivation, and 660 square meters for facility cultivation).”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”). (b)

On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff received agricultural compensation from the Defendant, and applied for the supply of the land for livelihood countermeasures. On March 9, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is disqualified.

The non-disqualification reason is that there is no public proof data on farming facts before the base date before the farmland was leased.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant application” and the “instant non-conformity notification” C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection to the instant disposition, but the Defendant rendered a non-conformity decision as seen earlier on April 16, 2018, and the Plaintiff again filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on November 6, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3 through 6 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been engaged in farming by leasing farmland in the instant project district since before December 31, 2005, which is the base date, since the Plaintiff had been engaged in farming. Accordingly, the instant disposition should be revoked as unlawful.

In other words, around September 2002, the Plaintiff leased 700 square meters among the 19,327 square meters in the area of the instant business district located from C in the Seosung-si (hereinafter “Duri”) E, 19,327 square meters, and up to 700 square meters.