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 a project implementer that carries out an urban development project C (hereinafter “instant project”) in the area of 1,185,113 square meters (the area was reduced after the reduction) in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Seoul. On April 21, 2008, the Goyang-gu publicly announced the residents’ public inspection to designate the said area as a C urban development zone.

B. On July 8, 2003, the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on June 23, 2003 with respect to the 76.85 square meters and 76.85 square meters and 76.85 square meters and 1st floor (hereinafter “the instant housing”) of Goyang-gu E in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, where the instant business area was located. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation from D on January 26, 2007.

C. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on compensation for the land, the land, and the instant housing and other obstacles, etc., the land of the instant housing, Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, and received compensation. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 27, 2016 for the instant housing on the ground of an agreement on land for public use on January 27, 2016.

Around January 2018, the Defendant established and announced the relocation measures for the project of this case, and set the requirements to be eligible for supply of the resettled housing site as “the portion for which the Defendant continued to own the permitted housing within the project district and resided in the project district from one year prior to the date of concluding the compensation contract or the date of the adjudication of expropriation within the project district (the date of the public notice for the public inspection of the residents) and who wishes to be supplied with the resettled housing site after receiving compensation for losses.”

E. The Plaintiff applied for the relocation measures to the Defendant to supply the migrants’ housing site, but the Defendant, on November 7, 2018, notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not continue to reside before the base date until the date of concluding a compensation contract or the date of ruling of expropriation.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] dispute.