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, as the executor of the Bogeumjari Housing Project in the District B (hereinafter “instant project”), was designated and publicly announced as the project district of the instant project in the Guri-si.

B. On October 29, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership relating to one-half shares of single-story housing located on the ground of Guri-si, E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “instant housing”).

C. The Defendant publicly announced the indemnity plan and the relocation measures following the implementation of the instant project, and the selection of a person to be supplied with a housing site for migrants was made on October 20, 2009, which is the date of the public inspection and announcement of the instant project, as the relocation measures base date. ① Whether a house is located in a planned area for the project as of the relocation measures base date, ② whether a house is legally constructed, ② whether a person continues to own the said house from before the base date of the relocation measures to the date of the conclusion of the compensation contract or the ruling of expropriation, ③ whether a person has been continuously residing in the said house from one year before the base date of the relocation measures to the

On October 29, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures. However, on July 2, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was excluded from the selection of a person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the grounds that the Plaintiff owned the instant house after October 29, 2008 and did not reside in the said house.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), Eul's entries and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff moved his resident registration to an area other than the instant project district.

However, since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant housing, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the instant housing until now, the said housing site for migrants.