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 is the implementer of the Gu Government-A public housing zone development project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiff was the owner of the Gu Government-Si Housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) located within the instant project zone due to inheritance around 1986.

B. The Defendant established and implemented relocation measures pursuant to Article 78 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, and the criteria for the selection of those eligible for supply of migrantss are as follows.

A person who has continuously owned and resided in a permitted house in a project district from one year before the base date (the date of public inspection and public announcement of district designation, October 9, 2006) to the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication of expropriation, and who wishes to supply a resettled housing site among the persons whose ownership house is removed in accordance with the project

C. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a water indemnity agreement with the Defendant on the content that the Plaintiff would receive KRW 21,620,000 in return for the removal or transfer of obstacles, including the instant house, by November 11, 2015.

After that, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of himself as a person subject to relocation measures (supply of migrants), but on October 27, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “Although it was excluded from the selection of a person subject to relocation measures because it does not meet the selection requirements prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations, it is adequate to meet the requirements for the person subject to special

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

Although the Plaintiff filed an objection against this, on December 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the result of the examination that the Defendant was excluded from the appointment of a person subject to relocation measures on the ground of nonconformity with the requirements for residence on the ground of the base date (which was confirmed to have been transferred on May 20, 2009, and excluded from the person subject to relocation measures due to lack of the grounds to recognize that he had resided before the base date ( October 9, 2006)).

【Ground of recognition】No dispute exists, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul.