1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is the implementer of the Gwangju Gwangju B general industrial complex development project (hereinafter “instant project”). With respect to the instant project, there were ① designation of industrial complex on March 31, 2007 (Development Plan) and announcement of topographic drawings (Seoul Metropolitan City C), ② announcement of the detailed land items to be incorporated into an industrial complex on March 15, 2008 (Public Notification D of Gwangju Metropolitan City), ③ alteration of designation of industrial complex (Public Notification E of Development Plan), announcement of approval of implementation plan (Public Notification of Gwangju Metropolitan City), ④ alteration of designation of industrial complex (Development Plan) and announcement of approval of implementation plan on December 15, 2010 (Public NotificationF of Gwangju Metropolitan City).

B. On August 12, 2011, the Defendant acquired through consultation a 144 square meters general restaurant of 144 square meters, 226.4 square meters general restaurants of 2nd floor, 2nd floor, and 57.6 square meters of detached houses of 2nd floor (hereinafter “instant building,” and 57.6 square meters of the said 2nd floor, which is owned by the Plaintiff, on August 31, 201, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of this on August 31, 2011.

C. The Plaintiff applied for the selection of the Defendant as the owner of the instant housing as the subject of the relocation measures, but on January 7, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of the exclusion of the subject of the relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s fact-finding survey on the subject of the 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 Article 40 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26867, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same) failed to meet the standards for the relocation measures and relevant regulations.

On the other hand, the plaintiff revoked the disposition against the defendant as the Gwangju District Court 2013Guhap10526 regarding the housing of this case, and the housing of this case.