1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had installed and possessed a manager’s building, outdoor toilets, dogs, feed warehouses, and plastic houses without obtaining permission on the land of the Plaintiff, which was incorporated into the B zone executed by the Defendant, and received KRW 63,577,160 as compensation for the above obstacles from the Defendant through consultation with the Defendant around October 201.

B. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff resided in the above unauthorized building, and filed an application for migration and livelihood measures and farming compensation with respect to the Defendant. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she does not constitute a person eligible for relocation and livelihood measures and farming compensation.

C. Around February 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant’s notification of the foregoing disqualified status, and on April 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was not eligible for relocation, livelihood measures, and farming compensation.

(hereinafter “instant notification”). The instant notification was served on May 8, 2015 on the Plaintiff.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, and 6-1 of Evidence Nos. 6-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s main defense to the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of 90 days from May 8, 2015, which was served on the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, through the administrative litigation notice document, notified the Defendant that it is possible to file an administrative litigation within 90 days from June 22, 2015, and accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 18, 2015 after 89 days from June 22, 2015, thereby complying with the filing period.

B. "A revocation suit shall be instituted within 90 days after the administrative agency becomes aware of the disposition, etc." as referred to in Article 20(1) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act is a peremptory term, and the period for filing a suit is an administrative agency's wrong notification of the longer period than that for filing an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act