The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is a business entity that carries out a D business (hereinafter “instant business”) at a daily log of 654,417 square meters in the Gu Government-si.

The Plaintiff used the instant building as a church, as the owner of 94.21 square meter (hereinafter “the instant building”) of the Do Government-si in the instant project area, the E-ground wooden flag and roof single-story housing, and as the owner of the instant building.

B. On October 8, 2018, the Defendant perused and publicly announced a compensation plan for the implementation of the instant project. The Defendant’s compensation plan only provides for the compensation of substitute land to the owners of buildings and land on religious facilities, and there is no provision regarding relocation measures or living measures with respect to religious facilities.

(c)

On January 8, 2019, the Plaintiff extended the supply of a religious site for the instant project to the Mayor of the Government, and sent a certificate of content that the Plaintiff would request the supply of a religious site as a living measure to the Plaintiff.

(d)

The Defendant applied the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Interest Business”) to the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects due to an urban development project implemented in accordance with the Special Act on Support for Areas, etc. adjacent to the F Zones (hereinafter “G Special Act”). There is no special provision regarding the measures for relocation of land for religious activities in the public interest law, and the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the standards for compensation for substitute land or supply of housing sites for migrants prepared by the Defendant. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entry of the evidence Nos. 1, 7, 10, 13, and 14, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff, prior to the merits, has the right or status to demand the defendant to supply religious land in relation to the business of this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right to seek confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition is either right or