1. On October 27, 2016 and May 15, 2017, the Defendant issued a non-qualified measure against the Plaintiff as a person subject to the relocation measures for a zone A.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is the implementer of the A public housing zone development project (hereinafter “instant project”), and the Plaintiff is the owner who acquired the C-ground housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) at the time of the Gu government located within the instant project zone due to legacy as of November 27, 2010.

The owners of unauthorized buildings, corporations, and organizations are excluded from the owners of unauthorized buildings, corporations, and organizations, who owned and continuously resided in a permitted house within a project district from one year before the base date (the date of public announcement on the designation of a district, October 9, 2006) to the date of conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of adjudication on expropriation, who received compensation for losses and emigrateed to the implementation of the project in this case.

B. The Defendant established and implemented relocation measures pursuant to Article 78 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), and among which the criteria for the selection of persons eligible to be supplied with the housing site for migrants are as follows.

C. On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for relocation measures (supply of a resettled site) with the Defendant, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was excluded from the selection because it does not meet the requirements for designation prescribed by relevant statutes on October 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant first disposition”), and on May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the instant house by testamentary gift after her husband’s death, and on May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff took a non-qualified disposition on the ground that “The Plaintiff acquired the instant house by inheritance and judgment pursuant to Article 8 of the Guidelines for Guidelines for the Development of Resettlement and Countermeasures against Living Conditions, not a testamentary gift, but a testamentary gift is recognized.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 2”. 【Ground of Recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus should be revoked.