1. The Defendant’s disposition of excluding those subject to relocation measures (unsettled sites) against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2018 shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is a project implementer that carries out an urban development project C (hereinafter “instant project”) within the area of 1,161,641 square meters (the area was reduced later) in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Seoul. On April 21, 2008, the Goyang-gu publicly announced the residents’ public inspection to designate the said area as a C urban development zone.

B. On December 30, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 26, 2002 with respect to the second floor E (hereinafter “instant house”) of Goyangyang-gu D apartment located in the instant project zone.

C. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a compensation contract with the Defendant for the instant housing, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 18, 2016 for the instant housing based on an agreement on land acquisition on February 29, 2016.

Around January 2018, the Defendant established and announced the relocation measures for the instant project, and determined the requirements to be eligible for supply of the resettled housing site as “the part of the resettled housing site intended to be supplied by the resettled housing site after receiving compensation for losses, as the part of the resettled housing site that had been continuously resided while possessing the permitted housing within the project district from one year before the base date (the date of the public notice for the inspection of the residents, April 21, 2008; hereinafter “base date”) to the date of concluding the compensation contract or the ruling of expropriation.”

E. On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the relocation measures to supply the migrants housing site, but the Defendant, on November 7, 2018, notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is deemed not to have resided continuously from before the base date until the date of concluding a compensation contract or the date of rendering a ruling of expropriation.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 14, 40, and Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On June 4, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transferred his resident registration to the instant house.