1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of an unauthorized Building (hereinafter “instant building”) of approximately 18 square meters located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Land Number C).

B. On July 23, 2007, the Defendant announced the approval of an urban planning facility project implementation plan (park creation project implementation plan), and on April 16, 2008, the Defendant announced the compensation plan (amended).

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant to select a person eligible for the special supply of national housing, but on April 27, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant building was deleted from the unauthorized Building Management Register and cannot be recognized as an existing unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling confirming that he/she is a person eligible for special supply of national housing, etc., but was dismissed on December 6, 2010, and the written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on January 20, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. On April 15, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the Plaintiff as a person eligible for special supply of national housing, etc. with this court on the grounds that, on June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff changed the period of filing the lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant rejection disposition to the lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant rejection disposition. In such a case, the period of filing the lawsuit for revocation shall be based on the time when the lawsuit is changed. Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed after the lapse of 90

B. Article 21(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that if it is deemed reasonable to change a revocation suit into an appeal litigation other than a party suit or a revocation suit against the State or a public organization to which the affairs related to the relevant disposition, etc. belong, the court shall make a claim.