1. The plaintiffO and AP shall be dismissed respectively.

2. The Defendant’s housing site for the Plaintiff F on October 27, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs owned a house within the business area (hereinafter “instant business area”) of the usfk relocation project (hereinafter “instant project”) that moves the usfk base to Pyeongtaek-si AU.S.A., or owned or leased and cultivated the land within the instant business area.

B. On January 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for supply of the said housing site for migrants under Article 33 of the Special Act on Support, etc. for Pyeongtaek-si, etc. Following the U.S. Armed Forces Base (hereinafter “the Special Act”) and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiffs constituted persons eligible for supply of the said housing site for migrantss (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On October 27, 2015, the Defendant sent a reply that, in the case of the Plaintiffs, among the Plaintiffs, the supply of the resettlement site is completed or confirmed as eligible to supply the resettlement site is eligible to supply the resettlement site. However, in the case of the Plaintiffs, the rest of the Plaintiffs constitutes disqualified persons for applying for the supply of the resettlement site because they did not meet the requirements for application or do not apply for the supply of the migrants site within the time limit for application (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion is obligated to establish and implement relocation measures for the plaintiffs who have lost their base of livelihood due to the implementation of the project in this case pursuant to Article 33 of the Special Act. The defendant failed to meet the criteria for the supply of migrants to the housing site under Article 19 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act (hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of this case").

The plaintiffs issued the instant disposition of refusal on the grounds that they did not apply for the supply of the resettled housing site.

However, the enforcement decree of this case is different.