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 July 14, 2010, the Defendant is the executor of the D Bogeumjari Housing Project (hereinafter “instant Project”) publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 17, 2010, as C public notice of the approval of the housing site development plan and the conversion of the Bogeumjari Housing Zone.

On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a compensation contract with the Defendant on the instant building, as the owner of the E-ground building (hereinafter “instant building”) located within the instant business zone in Namyang-si.

Title: The result of review of the objection to the relocation measures as a result of review of the objection is known as follows:

A revocation suit may be instituted within 90 days from the date when he/she becomes aware of a disposition, etc. under the Administrative Litigation Act regarding the results of the examination.

Results of Review: Grounds Disqualified for Relocation Measures

1. The thickness is “a person who has not been residing continuously from the date of public notice, etc. under the relevant laws and regulations to the date of concluding the contract or the date of expropriation ruling” under Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works

2. It constitutes “the owner of a building constructed or changed its use without obtaining permission or filing a report on construction or change of use” under Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

B. Around July 28, 2016, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff was disqualified (hereinafter “instant disqualified notification”) due to the Plaintiff’s failure to meet the criteria for eligibility for relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disqualified notification”).

On September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant. On September 23, 2016, the Defendant notified the result of reexamination following the filing of the objection (hereinafter “instant re-examination notification”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and Eul evidence No. 6, and arguments.