1. The Defendant’s disposition of excluding those subject to relocation measures against the Plaintiff on September 28, 2016 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Basic facts are the project implementer of the D Bogeumjari Housing Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”), whose business area covers the land of 1,96,489 square meters of all members, such as Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and Cdong, and the Plaintiff is the owner at the time of accepting the E-story Housing and 49.19 square meters of a single-story housing (hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing”).

On March 28, 2012, the Defendant concluded an indemnity agreement with the Plaintiff regarding the instant housing (Evidence No. 18), and, on July 28, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of the purport that “the Plaintiff was determined as disqualified because it failed to meet the criteria for those subject to the relocation measures of the instant housing,” ex officio, to the effect that “the Plaintiff was determined as disqualified” (hereinafter “prior disposition”).

(A) Exclusion from Residential Requirements - Residential Requirements - Residential Requirements - The fact that the tenant was investigated to have resided in the house at the time of the basic investigation and that there was no space in which the tenant was living. The fact that the criteria for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures such as “Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects” and “Rules for the Implementation of Resettlement and Living Measures” do not meet the criteria for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures such as “the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects” - The criteria for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures - the resident prior to the date of public announcement for public inspection (before January 19, 206: 1 year prior to the date of the decision of expropriation) (or the date of the decision of expropriation) prior to the date of the contract for compensation (excluding the owner of a building without permission, corporation or organization) due to the implementation of the project, and the plaintiff raised an objection against the above notification on September 25, 2016.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap's 1.