1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on September 24, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as the implementer of the Ansan B Village Residential Environment Improvement Project implemented from March 199 to December 2004 (hereinafter “instant project”), completed the relevant construction on September 13, 2004, and publicly announced on October 19, 2004 pursuant to Article 39 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 7335, Jan. 14, 2005; hereinafter the same) at the time of Ansan, publicly announced the replotting disposition on the instant project as C.

B. On August 8, 2001, the network F, which owned D 30.2 square meters and E large 27.2 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant land substitution”), within the area of the instant land, was killed, and accordingly, the land before the instant land substitution was inherited to the Plaintiff, etc.

C. Pursuant to the above replotting disposition, the instant land prior to the instant land substitution was increased to 130.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land after the instant land substitution”) in Gyeyang-gu, Manyang-gu, Mayang-si, according to the said replotting disposition, and KRW 40,572,750 was imposed as liquidation money.

On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a commission to the competent registry office for registration of the land following the instant replotting disposition.

(hereinafter “instant application”). On September 24, 2015, the Defendant sent a reply that the Plaintiff cannot request the registration of the instant application without paying the liquidation amount pursuant to the instant disposition of replotting.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. If an administrative agency does not have legal obligation to respond to a request based on a party’s legal or sound right, such as a certain disposition, affirmative action citing the request, rejection or dismissal, etc. within a reasonable period of time, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission as provided for in Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which determines the primary claim, in which case the administrative agency does not have legal obligation to respond to the request.