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 Defendant is the executor of the I Industrial Complex Plan, approved and publicly notified on September 30, 2009, with the size of 4,081,46 square meters as the business area in Gwangju Mine-gu Cdong, Ddong, Edong, and Hagu-dong, Jeonnam-si, Fri, Gri, Hriwon, and Hriwon, as B announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

B. On March 29, 2017, the Defendant directed the relocation measures formulated 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 Enforcement Decree of the same Act with respect to the implementation of the said project, and the requirements for those subject to the said relocation site are as follows:

A person who has continuously owned and resided in a project district continuously from before the date of public inspection and announcement of an industrial complex to be supplied with the housing site (the date of September 30, 2009) until the date of conclusion of an indemnity agreement or the date of adjudication of expropriation, and who has received compensation for the said housing from the defendant and emigrateed due to the implementation of this project after January 25, 1989, shall be excluded from the owner of a building without permission and a corporation or organization (a clan

C. On July 26, 2018, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the building located in the Gwangju Mine-gu J (hereinafter “instant building”) in the said business zone, applied for the supply of a housing site for migrants to the Defendant, and on the ground that “the building ledger of the instant building is confirmed to be an unauthorized house constructed after January 25, 1989” from the Defendant, the Plaintiff was disqualified for relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but dismissed on May 24, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4 through 7, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff alleged that the instant disposition was unlawful since the building, which had been originally living in the Roman in around 1995, was collapsed and resided continuously after reconstruction of the instant building.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Whether the disposition is legitimate.