1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 30, 2002, the Plaintiff completed registration of preservation of ownership as to the 13.8 square meters [ de facto lot number: C] attached to the splate roof, Seongbuk-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, on August 30, 2002, on a single-story housing of 51.23 square meters, and 13.8 square meters attached to the wooden splate roof (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 21, 2009, the Minister of Knowledge Economy publicly announced D on July 21, 2009 that the Defendant was designated and publicly announced as the project implementer of the I Development Project to be implemented at the Sungsung-gu Edong, Fdong, G Dong and H Dongwon.

C. The instant building was included in the business area of the J Development Project, which is the above development project (hereinafter “instant project”), and on May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to remove or transfer obstacles, such as the instant building, warehouse, fence, and trees, and to receive compensation therefor from the Defendant.

Around July 2016, the Defendant established the relocation and livelihood measures for the instant project. Around July 21, 2009, the date on which the criteria for selection of subjects of relocation and livelihood measures were designated and announced as the date of the instant project implementer’s designation and notification (hereinafter “the instant base date”). Around July 21, 2009, the Defendant set the amount of persons eligible for resettlement’s housing site, housing, and resettlement funds to “the portion of the portion of the said portion of the said portion of the said portion of the portion of the said portion of the said portion of the said portion of the said project, for which the said person had continuously resided while possessing a house within the relevant project district from July 21,

E. Around August 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of the Plaintiff as a person subject to relocation measures (unsettled site). On February 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition that was disqualified for relocation measures pursuant to the main sentence of Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects on the ground that the Plaintiff had not resided with the Plaintiff from the base date of the instant case ( July 21, 2009) before the date of concluding the compensation contract or the date of

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

.....