1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the conjunctive claim is revoked, and the plaintiffs' lawsuit as to the revoked part is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the implementer of the king-D Urban Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”) that was implemented in accordance with the Urban Development Act in the king-si E zone on May 26, 2009.

B. Plaintiff A is an owner of 200 square meters of the Fransi’s ground housing located within the instant project zone, and Plaintiff B filed an application for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on December 28, 2016, respectively, as the owner of G-based greenhouse 180 square meters and container 54 square meters.

On September 26, 2017, the Defendant notified each of the Plaintiffs that it was disqualified (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The instant disposition was served on the Plaintiffs on September 27, 2017, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 11, 12, Eul evidence 3 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. In the light of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs should be selected as persons eligible for the supply of land for migrants pursuant to Article 24 of the Urban Development Act and Article 78(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), as the subject of the supply of land for migrants.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not respond to the application of this case by the plaintiffs, so that the defendant, explicitly or implicitly, excluded the plaintiffs from the suppliers of the previous housing site, thus seeking revocation of the disposition to exclude the above migrants from the recipients of the previous housing site.

The Plaintiffs did not follow the procedure to modify the purport of the instant disposition as of September 26, 2017, but did not explicitly exclude the Plaintiff B from the subject of supply of the migrants’s housing site. However, it was added to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition was taken to exclude the Plaintiff B from the subject of

Through the preparatory brief dated March 9, 2018, the same shall apply.