1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stipulated in the following Paragraph 2, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text

2. The addition;

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The basic date stipulated in the relocation measures of this case (hereinafter “basic date for relocation measures of this case”).

(2) Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Relocation Measures for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 781, Dec. 30, 2005) provides that “The relocation measures base date of this case shall be the date when the public notice is made pursuant to the relevant Act and subordinate statutes for public services” as stipulated in Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Relocation Measures for Public Works Projects.” The relocation measures base date of this case is the date when the relocation measures base date of this case cannot be deemed a legitimate relocation measures base date. However, on December 29, 2006, the public notice was made for public inspection of the designation of an urban development zone pursuant to Article 7 of the Urban Development Act.”

Therefore, the plaintiff L and S are excluded from the person subject to the relocation measures because they do not fall under the person who has resided before the date of the public inspection for the above residents.

3) All plaintiffs M, N,O, P, and R are clear that they have separated household units for the purpose of sale right. In such a case, if the relocation measures are recognized as a person subject to the relocation measures, they are bound to fall into real estate speculation rather than the measures for public works. The defendant, who has broad discretion in establishing relocation measures, as a project operator, excluded the above plaintiffs from the person subject to the relocation measures, cannot be said to be unlawful by a reasonable decision within the scope of the defendant's discretion. (b) The proviso to Article 2-8-13-3 of the Urban Development Work Guidelines as of the base date for relocation measures is "However, the proviso to Article 2-8-13