1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a detached house of reinforced concrete structure B (hereinafter “instant house”), and the instant house is located in the project district of the C District Development Project, which is a housing site development project executed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person eligible to be supplied with the instant multi-resident housing site. However, on January 12, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to be disqualified (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as a result of the review of the instant project’s relocation measures, and sent a document stating that “if an objection is raised against the Plaintiff, the result of the examination becomes final and conclusive, and if an objection is not filed in writing by March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff may file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation within 90 days from the date of receipt of the relevant notification, and the Plaintiff received it on January 26, 2015.

C. Around March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but the Defendant, around May 14, 2015, notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not accept the Plaintiff’s objection on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for supply of the migrants’s housing site. The written notification stated that “Around May 14, 2015, it is known that the Plaintiff may file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation within 90 days from the date of receipt of the pertinent notification under

On August 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission to revoke the instant disposition, which was dismissed on the ground that the period for filing an administrative appeal was elapsed on December 8, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense is the defendant's objection.