209Guhap7005 Such revocation shall be excluded from being supplied with a housing site for migrants

Han, ○ (47 years old, male)

Masung-si, Blue-si

Attorney Park Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-hoon et al.

Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation

Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si

The president of the representative ○

Attorney Jeon-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

October 28, 2009

December 10, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of June 9, 2009 that excluded the plaintiff from those to be supplied with the housing site for migrants shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In order to carry out the housing site development project on June 30, 2004 (hereinafter “project in this case”), the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated and publicly announced the housing site development area of 00,000 square meters as the housing site development area and the project implementer as the defendant, etc. under the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Notice No. 2004-156, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, as the housing site development area, and as the project implementer, as the project in this case under the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Notice No. 2005-532 on December 30, 2005.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s housing 00 - 00 m/ 00 m/ 00 m (hereinafter “the instant building”) was included in the instant project district in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si. 00 - 00 m (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. Around March 2006, the Defendant published a compensation plan for the instant project district, and among them, the criteria for the supply of migrants’ housing sites are as follows.

(1) The base date for the selection of persons eligible to be supplied with the housing site for migrants: January 8, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "base date of this case").

(2)

(2) Persons to be supplied with the housing site for migrants: The date of concluding a compensation contract from one year before the base date of this case; or

Until January 24, 1989, the house lawfully constructed (unauthorized on January 24, 1989)

A person who has continuously owned and resided in a house, and who has been compensated;

C. The building of this case is a house on the building management ledger, and the plaintiff's domicile on the register of residents, etc. is the building of this case from May 1, 1984.

D. At the time of February 4, 2006, the construction of this case was conducted a survey of obstacles to the building of this case, and the construction of this case was used as a restaurant that sells chickens and ducks, etc. with a sign attached to the entrance and gate of "Geigueg" at the entrance and gate as the area of 00 meters. The construction of this case was used as a restaurant that sells chickens and ducks. The three rooms inside the building were equipped with a house for restaurant operation, such as table table, etc., and there was no household tool, etc.

E. On June 8, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of the Plaintiff as a person eligible for supply of the resettled housing site on the ground that the Plaintiff continued to reside in the instant building for one year prior to the date of the instant contract for compensation. However, on June 9, 2009, the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff was used as the owner of the instant building, but it was used as a business (store) for the purpose different from the purpose of use on the building ledger, and that the Plaintiff was residing in one square column in the store, and was transferred on the basis of resident registration.

However, it is judged that only resident registration is made and does not reside in a place of business in reference to the fact that a survey of obstacles is conducted in the place of business (store) and the field photography, etc.

The instant disposition was taken to exclude the Plaintiff from a person subject to supply of a resettled housing site on the ground that he failed to meet the requirements.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 3-2, evidence No. 7, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2

The purport of the whole

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In part of the instant building, the Plaintiff engaged in restaurant business under the trade name of △△△, △△, and the main purpose of the instant building is a residential building. The Plaintiff continued to reside in one column among the instant buildings for one year prior to the instant base date in farmland located in the vicinity and left agricultural houses. As such, the Plaintiff is subject to the supply of a multi-resident housing site in accordance with the instant project.

(b) Markets:

In order for the plaintiff to be a person eligible for supply of the housing site for migrants, the building of this case must continuously reside in the building for more than one year prior to the basic date, and the plaintiff's family members appear to have resided in the building of this case for more than one year, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: although the building of this case is a house on the building management ledger, the building of this case is a house for the purpose of use on the building of this case, but at the time of the investigation of obstacles to the building of this case, a restaurant signboard was attached to the entrance and door at the time of the investigation of obstacles to the building of this case, and the house for the operation of the restaurant was kept in all inside rooms, and there was no household tool, etc., and since the plaintiff's family members appear to have resided in other places than the building of this case, it is difficult to believe it as a substitute, and there is no other evidence to recognize it otherwise, the plaintiff's family members to be supplied to the housing site.

not be deemed to constitute a case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case by the plaintiff is not well-grounded except for those subject to the supply of the housing site for migrants, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges subordinate to the presiding judge;

Judges Seo-dae et al.

Judges Immination