1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is the co-resident of the owner C on the registry of Pyeongtaek-si B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) of 2,078 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) and one story 41.45 square meters (house), 58.87 square meters (house), 52.2 square meters (house), 1 floor 52.2 square meters (house), and 112 square meters (house) on the registry of the said building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”), and the Defendant is the project implementer of E-housing site development project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”).

The period of application: A person subject to supply of a housing site for migrants from July 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014: Before the date of public inspection by the E residents (or the date of the adjudication of expropriation) and continuously resided in the house before the date of concluding the compensation contract (or the date of the adjudication of expropriation). The owner of an unauthorized building, a corporation, or an organization that moves into the house due to the execution of the project after receiving compensation from the project implementer: A person subject to special supply of the house who owned the house continuously before the date of public inspection by the E (or the date of the adjudication of expropriation) and resided in the house (or the date of the adjudication of expropriation) until the date of the conclusion of the compensation contract; the owner of the building without permission, a corporation, and the Defendant excluded the land owner for public works and the relocation measures (hereinafter referred to as the “land owner”) under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25016, Dec. 23, 2014).

C filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person subject to the relocation measures regarding the instant project, but on August 13, 2015, the Defendant was notified by the Defendant of the selection of a person ineligible for the relocation measures of the instant project (Evidence 1-1) and the Plaintiff.