1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of an unauthorized Building 18 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Land Number C).

B. On July 23, 2007, the Defendant publicly announced the approval of the implementation plan for urban planning facilities (park creation) for the creation of H Park with respect to the land, building, etc. to be incorporated into the H Park Construction Project on April 16, 2008 (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201) with respect to the land, building, etc. to be incorporated into the H Park Construction Project, the Defendant publicly announced a compensation plan (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201) pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for

C. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant be selected as a person eligible for the special supply of national housing. On April 27, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant building was deleted from the ledger for the management of unauthorized Buildings and cannot be recognized as an existing unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on April 15, 201, seeking the revocation of the above rejection disposition (this Court Decision 201Guhap12535, 201), while the Defendant’s rejection disposition was unlawful under different premise, even though the Plaintiff met the requirements for a person eligible for the special supply of national housing under the Rules of the Seoul Special Supply for the removed citizens, etc. (hereinafter “instant Rules”).

E. On September 8, 2011, the instant court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a person eligible for the special supply of national housing under the instant rule, and thus the Defendant’s refusal disposition cannot be deemed unlawful.”

F. The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment (Seoul High Court 201Nu34087), but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on March 1, 2012, and the Plaintiff appealed against it (Supreme Court 2012Du8199).