1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s new argument that was presented by this court in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. On May 1, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion was publicly announced on May 1, 2016 on the designation of a rearrangement zone and a topographical map.

Thus, the public inspection announcement date, which is the basis for compensation for the cost of moving residence, should be May 1, 2016, and the plaintiff satisfied the eligibility to receive the cost of moving residence.

B. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the head of the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City shall designate the improvement zone of the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City as the improvement zone on September 27, 2012 for the first time in relation to the improvement zone of the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City as the improvement zone, and shall be 86,784.1 square meters on March 17, 2015, and 86,61.3 square meters on May 1, 2016. However, according to the above evidence, the fact that the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City's housing located in the plaintiff's residence was continuously included in the improvement zone of this case after being included in the improvement zone of this case at the time of announcement of the improvement plan of September 27, 2012 can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the housing of the Plaintiff residing in the rearrangement zone was included only in the rearrangement zone due to the designation of a change in the rearrangement zone in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.