1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 3, 2009, the Defendant is a public official of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced D on November 16, 201, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs publicly notified D on December 3, 2009, and the approval for modification, such as the designation and public announcement of the Bogeumjari Housing District and the district plan (hereinafter “instant project”).

(2) On October 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was the implementer of the instant project and announced for public inspection of the residents on October 2009. 2) The Plaintiff was the owner of the Franju-si’s ground housing located within the instant project zone (hereinafter “instant housing”). On April 11, 2013, the Defendant entered into a compensation agreement with the Plaintiff on obstacles to the instant housing.

B. The Defendant’s reasons for determining the eligibility of those subject to relocation measures against the Plaintiff: A person who owned a legitimate house in the relevant project district and resided continuously within the said project district by January 25, 1989, - Unauthorized building (non-use building) constructed before and after January 25, 1989 - Requirements for ownership: A person who had not been subject to relocation measures (excluding building owners and corporations and organizations without permission since January 25, 1989) - A person who had been subject to relocation measures under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor and the Standards for the Selection of Persons subject to Relocation Measures for Residents - (Public Inspection Date: October 20, 2009) before the date of concluding the compensation contract (or the date of expropriation decision) for relocation measures (excluding the date of non-use building owners and organizations without permission). The Defendant did not meet the criteria for selection of those subject to relocation measures for the following reasons:

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant disposition is made.